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.

[dtobias]

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.

[everyking]

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.

[gomi]

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.

The reality is that you are a disingenuous, prevaricating, lying sack of lying shit. When you first commented on this, it wasn't hypothetical at all. It only became hypothetical when I extracted it from the discussion of bizarro Wiki-admin Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D) , about whom you said:

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?

In other words, you assumed a priori to the discussion, that he was a convicted child porn felon, was editing by proxy, and concluded -- with that knowledge -- that he nevertheless shouldn't be barred from doing so because of his crime. Nothing hypothetical about that. It only became hypothetical when he claimed "Joke!", but that wasn't in evidence when you responded.

Every time I think my opinion of you has reached a new low, you break through and sink lower. Astonishing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Every time I think my opinion of [Everyking] has reached a new low …

But you just keep keepin him around, so if Everyking is a pedophile-enabler, you must be a pedophile-enabler-enabler …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)