Lir,
Hmmmm, I would like you to cool down and allow time
for things to proceed.
This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so
essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable.
Allow people to have time on their own, to meet
happily for the first time in their lives, to meet
with many of those with whom they have been sharing so
much online. Jimbo will be away for a few more days of
holidays. Angela will be off till tuesdays at least.
I think that I spent most of my last night online
trying to decipher the issue you had with Guanaco, and
the conclusion of it, was that it had been a not very
good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his
part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock
puppets. Sannse agreed to try to work with others on
this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought
this was essentially your request : that things are
clearer.
I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right
now, really no time to look at it. I do agree that
Guanaco move last week was too quick but I also think
it really was done in *good faith*.
I suggest that you explain what happened to the
arbitration committee if you really feel that it is
important. If there is need to sign up somewhere so
that this happen, just tell me. I hope the AC will
consider your request. I am talking about what
happened with Guanaco last week, not later events I
know nothing about.
This said, I mostly hope that a clearer policy is set,
so that new sysops have clear guidelines. I know
Guanaco did not mean bad.
Thanks
-- C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com> wrote:
> Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia
> Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as
> concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not
> even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious
> that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any
> reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be
> treated according to the rules of the website. Thank
> you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com>
> To: Anthere<mailto:anthere9@yahoo.com>
> Cc:
>
wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org>
> ;
>
wikipedia-en(a)wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-en@wikipedia.org>
> ;
> Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com<mailto:Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com>
> ;
> chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com<mailto:chris_mahan@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:27 PM
> Subject: Hephaestos must be desysoped
>
>
> Since no effort was made to address my previous
> ban, in which Guanaco banned me because he felt that
> I was User:Yuna (despite having no evidence to
> support his claim) -- now, I have been banned again,
> for an even less reasonable reason. Such is the
> slippery slope, no? Hephaestos has now banned me.
> without giving any reason, except that I have
> "admitted to trolling" -- whatever that could mean.
> The ban is for 30 days.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Lir,
Hmmmm, I would like you to cool down and allow time
for things to proceed.
This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so
essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable.
Allow people to have time on their own, to meet
happily for the first time in their lives, to meet
with many of those with whom they have been sharing so
much online. Jimbo will be away for a few more days of
holidays. Angela will be off till tuesdays at least.
I think that I spent most of my last night online
trying to decipher the issue you had with Guanaco, and
the conclusion of it, was that it had been a not very
good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his
part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock
puppets. Sannse agreed to try to work with others on
this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought
this was essentially your request : that things are
clearer.
I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right
now, really no time to look at it. I do agree that
Guanaco move last week was too quick but I also think
it really was done in *good faith*.
I suggest that you explain what happened to the
arbitration committee if you really feel that it is
important. If there is need to sign up somewhere so
that this happen, just tell me. I hope the AC will
consider your request. I am talking about what
happened with Guanaco last week, not later events I
know nothing about.
This said, I mostly hope that a clearer policy is set,
so that new sysops have clear guidelines. I know
Guanaco did not mean bad.
Thanks
-- C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com> wrote:
> Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia
> Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as
> concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not
> even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious
> that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any
> reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be
> treated according to the rules of the website. Thank
> you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com>
> To: Anthere<mailto:anthere9@yahoo.com>
> Cc:
>
wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org>
> ;
>
wikipedia-en(a)wikipedia.org<mailto:wikipedia-en@wikipedia.org>
> ;
> Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com<mailto:Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com>
> ;
> chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com<mailto:chris_mahan@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:27 PM
> Subject: Hephaestos must be desysoped
>
>
> Since no effort was made to address my previous
> ban, in which Guanaco banned me because he felt that
> I was User:Yuna (despite having no evidence to
> support his claim) -- now, I have been banned again,
> for an even less reasonable reason. Such is the
> slippery slope, no? Hephaestos has now banned me.
> without giving any reason, except that I have
> "admitted to trolling" -- whatever that could mean.
> The ban is for 30 days.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I mean like it is hard to see where the line is. In most schools, the pupils
are forbidden from wearing the swastika. Which is good. Then in some schools
the pupils are forbidden from wearing the red star or the Soviet symbol..
The hammer and the other thing. Which is less good. Then in some schools
pupils may not display any political or religious symbols at all because
some might consider some of them hatespeech. Which totally suck. I think
that's why people are very afraid of any proposal that might limit free
speak.
>This is kind of muddy syntax but no, having met a communist or two, I can
>say that "murderous" does not definitively define them however baleful the
>historical record. Dumb and Dumber, maybe.
>
>Fred
>
> > From: "Eric B. Rakim" <eric_b_and_rakim(a)hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:11:48 +0000
> > To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: WHEELER's anti-semitism
> >
> > Meaning communists also have to right to complain against WHEELER's hate
>for
> > communists meaning that since its not OK to call jews murderous
>(ofcourse
> > it's not!) it's not OK to call communists murderous?
> >
> > We're OK with that...
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
David Gerard wrote:
> On 07/04/04 15:02, Robert wrote:
>
>> But in the last year hatespeech seems to have become
>> acceptable, and those who use it have been rewarded, while
>> victims of it are attacked. This is a sad turn of events,
>> and will cause Wikipedia's repuation to suffer terribly.
>> Already many academics I know view Wikipedia as hopeless;
>> but if this phenomenon spreads its reputation will be
>> hopelessly tarnished.
>
> This sounds like circular discussions with 142/entmoots on IRC.
> He says Wikipedia's policy direction is hopelessly flawed and he
> wants to change it to protect the 'GFDL corpus'.
Yes, it's quite ironic that two such bitter enemies as Robert Kaiser and
Craig Hubley do start to sound pretty much the same in the end.
--Michael Snow
Fred Bauder wrote:
>Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His
>idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism. He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.
>
This is a pet peeve of mine, but there is a world of difference between
a policy that sanctions hate speech, and a policy that imposes sanctions
against hate speech. I don't know if you will succeed in getting the
latter, but if we had the former then many of RK's posts would not be an
overreaction at all.
To sanction can mean to authorize or approve; it can also mean to
penalize. In order to clarify which meaning is intended, one must
provide the appropriate context when using the word.
--Michael Snow
Should Sysops be held to the rule of law? Should Sysops be required to respect due process? Should they be required to understand the burden of proof, and agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Should sysops face administrative discipline, when they break the rules governing their action?
For instance, should sysops face justice when they ban a user who hasn't been creating clear and obvious vandalism; in a situation where consensus cannot be found for the banning, where a quick poll has not been successful, where neither the arbitration committee nor Jimbo Wales has supported the ban...should such sysops be admonished, or should they feel free to continue with their vigilantism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sysop_Accountability_Policy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sysop_Accountability_Policy>
Ray's attacks on the Jews for not forgiving Nazis is not
only off-topic, but outrageously hateful. Without any
exagerration, his argument comes directly from Neo-Nazi
websites. This is no joke. Please look at the many Nazi
websites on the Internet; they have precisely the same
argument Ray uses here.
Every mainstream Jewish organization has condemned this
specific argument as anti-Semitism.
Ray writes:
> but militant Jewish organizations continue to insist
> that the matter be continued in the criminal justice
> system.
As opposed to gentiles, who don't enforce the laws of their
nations? In what country? On what planet?
> These very vocal and very public organizations manage
> to promote a public image of Jews as completely
> insensitive and unforgiving.
This is classical Chrisitian anti-Semitism, and has been
used for over 2,000 years to explain why all Jews will burn
in hell. It also paints the victim as evil for the "sin" of
asking that justice be served.
> The same can be said of the Nazi hunters who continue to
> seek punishment on old men 60 years after the fact,
> often at great expense.
There is no time-limit on mass murder and genocide. Members
of my own family were exterminated by the Germans. Why
should people be allowed to get away with rape, slavery and
murder, just because they were lucky enough to evade the
legal authorities at the time? That is a highly immoral
position.
> There comes a time when these events need to be put
> behind us so that everyone can go on with life.
So it would be Ok, if someone here raped and murdered your
mother, raped and killed your sister, and killed your
father and son, and burnt all their bodies in an oven? And
then did this to most of your extended family? You'd
actually argue in public that someone who did such a thing
should be allowed to get away with it, if they evaded the
authorities at the time and lived as a free man until he
was 60? If so, then you are a sick man who needs mental
help, immediately. If not, then you have an anti-Semitic
double standard.
I am disgusted at this pro-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic
vitriol. I am just wondering if anyone here will have the
guts to oppose this violent hatespeech.
Robert Kaiser (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Sean B. writes:
> Please explain to me how speech can kill someone.
> For extra credit, explain how words on a Web page can do
> any physical harm.
Do you really not know the answer? Ok, I will answer your
question honestly, and accurately:
Many people used to say and write "I hate the fucking Jews.
Kill the Jews". Then some people did kill Jews.
Many people used to say and write "I hate the fucking
niggers. Kill the niggers". Then some people did kill
blacks.
Many people used to say and write "I hate the fucking
queers. Kill the quuers". Then some people did kill
homosexuals.
Just read the newspapers, and you will see stories of
homosexuals being beaten, assaulted, and even murdered, all
the time. The same is true for Jews; attacks on Jews all
across the world are on the rise. Synagogues are being
burned, Jews are being beaten in the streets, houses are
being covered in Nazi swastikas, etc. This is not
theoretical; this is real. (Even in my hometown a synagogue
was torched.)
In the real world, repeated hateful words often lead to
violent actions. Anyone who claims otherwise is a poor
liar.
The way that Wheeler is attacking SLR is a violation of
SLR's civil rights, and is anti-Semitic in of itself. The
way that Ray is pushing JewWatch neo-Nazi arguments to
slander all Jews is also wrong. Both Wheeler's and Ray's
exact arguments, common on Nazi websites, have as their
goal the advocacy of discrimination towards Jews.
The question is this: Should we allow Wikipedia to deviate
from its original goal (working on a factual, NPOV
encyclopedia)? Should we allow Wikipedia to become a safe
haven for racist hatespeech? In the past, such speech was
not tolerated at all, and was reason enough for a ban.
Back when Jimbo and Larry were mostly in charge, hatespeech
was off limits.
But in the last year hatespeech seems to have become
acceptable, and those who use it have been rewarded, while
victims of it are attacked. This is a sad turn of events,
and will cause Wikipedia's repuation to suffer terribly.
Already many academics I know view Wikipedia as hopeless;
but if this phenomenon spreads its reputation will be
hopelessly tarnished.
It doesn't matter if the hatespeech is towards Jews,
blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, or anyone else. It has no
place in an encyclopedia project, let alone in a society
where we claim to respect human life.
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
So WHEELER said:
Jewish Communist bastards murdered Christians.
Meaning:
Jewish = murderous
Communist = murderous
Jewish = bastard
Communist = bastard
Meaning communists also have to right to complain against WHEELER's hate for
communists meaning that since its not OK to call jews murderous (ofcourse
it's not!) it's not OK to call communists murderous?
We're OK with that...
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963