[WikiEN-l] Re: No more blocking people for who they *are*?

Ilya N. ilyanep at gmail.com
Tue Feb 7 23:10:26 UTC 2006

While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are
usually pretty weak.

Why not take away 3RR citing the argument that "Eventually we won't be
allowed to edit. It is a slippery slope"? Or NPA on the basis that it
infringes free speech?

On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree
> not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how
> disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least
> somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people
> for actions.
> In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy
> this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they
> are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action -
> trolling.
> I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a
> pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member
> of Hamas" then "I support Eta"  and so on and so forth. Is it not
> better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who
> they are or what they believe"?
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list