It's been suggested in the past
that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense. Does that
complete the list? Neo-Nazis and pedophiles out; everybody else ok?
Well, I suppose "I support suicide bombings" is probably out too. Is
the ArbCom going to be in charge of making these decisions?
I think you meant your question to be rhetorical, but the answer is of
course "yes". There is a question of what is good or bad for the
project as a whole, and we all agree (right?) that people acting in a
disruptive way or in a way that causes harm to our charitable mission
can be banned from the project. (I say "can be" because it is
frequently our judgment that although we could ban certain people, it's
easier on net to do something else.)
No, I don't agree with that blanket statement. Only people who act in a
way that impedes the process of *writing an encyclopedia* should be banned.
I also object to a strongly US- and Euro-centric view of what is
"offensive" versus "not offensive". Why should US and European
norms be the imposed standards?