QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 27th February 2010, 3:25am)
So, basically, what people here are saying is not that Everyking is a pedophile, or even that he supports pedophile activity in any way; merely the "meta-issue" that, in terms of Wikipedia internal policy, he opposes banning all pedophiles from editing. This is a position on Wikipedia policy, not on pedophilia per se, but apparently it's a thoughtcrime for which he should be desysopped. How many meta-levels do you people want to carry this?
LEVEL 0: Somebody who is a pedophile
LEVEL 1: Somebody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 2: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
LEVEL 3: Somebody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban everybody who doesn't want to ban all pedophiles from Wikipedia
...and so on
You can have meta-thoughtcrimes to the infinite degree!
Something rather similar happened during the BADSITES Wars, when the SlimVirgin / ElinorD crowd not only wanted to ban linking to evil harassment sites like Wikipedia Review, they wanted to take action against people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who linked to them, and people who condoned people who condoned linking to them, and so on.
I'm only on level 1? I feel dirty. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
The reality is that my viewpoint is functionally the same as the opposing viewpoint: if someone acts like a pedophile, they should be banned. The difference arises only when we're discussing hypothetical cases. I try to set my own feelings to the side and believe in the importance of giving everybody a fair shake, so the idea of banning someone who hasn't been doing anything wrong fills me with doubt.