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

[Steve Bennett]

On 2/8/06, W. Guy Finley <wgfinley at dynascope.com> wrote:
> I have it, lets form a committee to review all of his edits, maybe even stop
> by his house and see if he actually IS a pedophile before we do anything!
> Yes, yes, wonderful idea!!  After all, it's far more vital to the project
> that people be allowed to make bold statements such as condoning or making
> light of molesting children on their user page than risk losing the
> incredibly valuable contributions such a person is bound to make to the
> project.

If such a person was discreetly making valuable changes to pages
unrelated to children or pedophilia, yes it would be a shame to lose
them under anti-pedophilia hysteria.

I'm sure I'll sooner or later get accused of supporting pedophiles,
but I'm just trying to be slightly rational here.


> Have I crossed into the frakking Bizarro world here or something?  What the
> hell is this NONSENSE??  The guy puts on his page "I am a pedophile" i.e. "I
> molest children" and his "joke" is more important than the obvious
> disruption it causes?  More important than the blatant insensitivity to

No, it's not. Disruption is bad.

> those who have had someone in their family molested or perhaps even molested
> themselves?  The fact that this has absofrakkinglutely NOTHING to do with
> CREATING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA???
>
> Yes, by all means, let's protect and hold up this fine example of a
> contributor to our project, send him out on the press stops with Jimbo!

Not blocking is not the same thing as protecting.

Steve