[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned

[Jaap van Ganswijk]

At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
>arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
>to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
>period of 3 months.

Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?

3 months is too long to ban people anyway. Try 2 days first, then
a week, then twice that.

As an European this reminds me of communism and nazisme.

Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of
here peers?

How can new Wikipedia-aspirant writers expect to be treated
fairly whenever they will try to introduce a new aspect in
say 20 years when you are all over 40?

Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled
more carefully.

What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have
been disallowed to right to rebuttle.

>After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.

Sure, and some sex on the side.

>I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
>the vast majority will be.

Not me.

>Such is the nature of consensus.

The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.

>I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.

Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your
friends?

>I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent,

So don't do it.

>which is why I have
>waited so long to take action in this case.

Ok, so because you waited so long, it makes it
right? And from which did you ban here exactly?
And why?

>Banning should always be a "last resort".

Yes. Like the death penalty.

And we don't like that in Europe.

>After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
>and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
>her,

So we lost one contributor, who may have had other
things to do (like me), and Helga is to blame!

Conflicts like this with Helga motivate
me to stay. Like my heroes Caesar, Machiavelli
etc. I like conflict.

>we are now at a last resort stage.

No, don't over dramatize matters. Buy I good 3D-video-card
and play games like 'Gore', Unreal etc. to relax.

>To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
>on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
>resolve differences.

Strangeligy enough you seem to reverse the classical
pattern of man versus woman.

>Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
>her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
>her posting style

Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing
list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?

How un-in-touch-with reality are you?

>in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
>to repeat her strange historical claims.

You should distinguish between asocial behaviour and
between having the 'wrong ideas'.

>In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
>avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
>than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
>decision.

And since this was done in public, I do this in public.

>Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,

Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?

>but there is really no appeal possible at this point.

Why not? Ban me too!

Freedom of speech is not for the easy cases, but for the
cases that you'd like to censor.

>The ban is not
>permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
>3 months time.

Three months is like a life sentence for freedom of speech.

Bah,
Jaap