I felt a sincere need to highlight this post by
EverykingÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
here on the
Review:
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:04pm)
I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?
The context was a discussion of an apparent convicted pedophile editing Wikipedia, and Everyking seems to have taken another step or five away from any social norms or objective reality in his position that someone -- someone convicted of sourcing just about the only kind of pornography from the Internet that is still illegal -- should in no way be hindered from editing Wikipedia.
Call someone an "asshole" -- lifetime ban.
Commit a felony involving
child porn -- welcome! What a strange world you inhabit.
Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field
