[WikiEN-l] Helga's back?

[Jens Frank]

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 07:03:07PM +0100, martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Having looked at a selection of the edits from 66.47.62.78, they look fine. The 
> problem with Helga was apparently due to her "unique" POV on history, and her 
> refusal to work with others. To date,  66.47.62.78 doesn't appear to have done either 
> of these things. There was a somewhat dubious sentence added to [[Nazi 
> Germany]], ("No allied Soviets were ever put on trial for their crimes against 
> humanity") - factually true but probably not central to this particular article (better at 
> [[Nuremberg Trials]], and swiftly reverted. There were also plenty of completely 
> inoffensive edits.

Read http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Malbork&diff=956630&oldid=956346
That's the basic pattern: "The cities are German, and therefor she names them by
their German name. The Poles just stole them." She adds this subtle POV to all 
articles. 

Or read http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bydgoszcz&diff=956642&oldid=954602
This are some completely useless facts she added. They prove that this is German
land, of course. There is a map with two cities. But what's the link to Bydgoszcz?

No, she did not change.
 
> Further, Helga has respected the terms of her ban from wikipedia for three months. I 
> feel that it would be appropriate to allow Helga back, on probation, to demonstrate 
> that we Wikipedians don't bear grudges for months no end, and to offer an 
> appropriate exit strategy for users such as Lir. Forgiveness would seem an important 
> part of WikiLove, at least to me. (insert similar platitudes here).

The rules are: Ask Jimbo first. Helga knows this. She apparently doesn't care. That
doesn't show that she accepts the rules.
 
> Of course, if she starts falling into bad habits again, by all means let us swiftly soft 
> ban her and follow that up with a hard ban as appropriate. Apparently it took around 
> a year to decide to ban Helga - we need not take so long the second time, should 
> that turn out to be necessary.

It's not the second time. She has been banned at least two times, if not three (she was
unbanned by accident, if I remember correctly).

JeLuF