Everyking: pedophiles can be productive editors, WP's morality distortion field Options

[gomi]

I felt a sincere need to highlight this post by Everyking (T-C-L-K-R-D) here on the Review:

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]

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct. Did you know that there are actually pedophiles who have served prison time and yet now walk free--capable of doing various things that might potentially enable them to groom children? The only solution is to just watch them. On Wikipedia, if we know a pedophile is editing, we can simply keep a close eye on the account. If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[GlassBeadGame]

As a Wikipedia Review celebrity, I am always delighted when my views get top billing around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I am very happy to see law enforcement deal with pedophiles in an appropriate manner, but I think Wikipedia participation should be evaluated on the basis on Wikipedia conduct. Did you know that there are actually pedophiles who have served prison time and yet now walk free--capable of doing various things that might potentially enable them to groom children? The only solution is to just watch them. On Wikipedia, if we know a pedophile is editing, we can simply keep a close eye on the account. If the pedophile is banned and starts a new account, we lose that ability unless we at some point identify the user again.

That is dishonest, two cute by half reasoning. The solution is get rid of them. You can't watch their email communication which is of course the most dangerous. Tyciol made a point of putting every piece of private contact information, email, chat, pm etc everywhere he could.

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

[Eva Destruction]

What is Everyking's conditions for recall? Someone should bring him up for recall and make it a referendum on his irresponsible position on pedophile editing.

He doesn't have any; you don't think that having fought this hard to get his prize, he'll ever give it back out of choice? (Admittedly, I don't think this is a resignation issue; while he may have very dubious opinions on pedophilia, I've not seen any sign of it on Wikipedia. If he were to unblock a blocked pedo on the grounds that it breaches their basic human right to edit Wikipedia (which seems to be the tenor of his argument here), or said that he would do so if the matter arose, that would be a different issue.)