Martin, you really can't stop the harassment, can you? You
really have no ability to control your rage, do you?
You and Entmoots Of Trools have now created som SIX
WIKIEPDIA PAGES dedicated to slander and harassment of me
alone. I can't imagine how many hours you two have spent
obsessed with me, and damaging Wikipedia in the process. So
yeah, I do really think that you are in some clinical
sense, obsessed (i.e. "sick"). You have spent months
harassing me, so has Entmoots of Trools, and your
collective harassment and libel is over the top.
Again, I request a ban on both Martin (MyRedDice) and
EntmootsOfTrools. I fail to understand why the Wikipedia
community is still allowing them to create more and more
Wiki sites dedicated to slander and harssment. They even
have created fake User Talk pages, which distract readers
from my genuine User Talk page. That itself is a bannable
offense. Wiki Sysops have written to them and asked them
to stop their harssment multiple times, but they refuse to
do so. What course of action is left?
Please ban these unrepentant vandals who refuse to follow
any semblance of Wikietiquette. This is getting more than
annoying; it is harassment (in the legal sense of the
term), and is now bordering on dangerous.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>Dr. Duffy wrote:
>"Much of what went on was simply Robert-baiting and
>anti-Robertism. That does not make it right, but it is
>wrong to attach religious or ethnic connotations to
>what has been going on. There have been cases of
>jew-baiting on wiki, a few cases, and I have blocked
>on the most recent culprits and called for the banning
>of another."
>
>This is highly quotable. May I? While I agree with
>nearly everything James has said, I disagree that EofT
>deserves banning. Punishing one child and not the
>other is a typical manifestation of lopsided parenting
>- usually resulting in a
>great despartity between how they are each treated,
>and consequently how they each continue to behave.
>Banning EofT, despite his rudeness, and inability to
>take good sound advice -- and not banning RK -- in all
>fairness, would only exacerbate the percieved problems
>of rampant anti-Semitism and philo-Semitism on
>Wikipedia.
>
>While one may deserve the other, and while the rest of
>the world may deserve neither, this does not mean that
>misplaced force will ever solve anything. Of course,
>HL Mencken disagreed: "Hanging one scoundrel, it
>appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it?
>The first one is at least disposed of." But then so
>many good turn of the century commentarians were
>speechless after 1945. Will Rodgers... Harry Truman,
>etc. etc.
>
>-S-
I understand your point and I do believe that Robert's behaviour is
seriously wrong. However I have to say that EoT's behaviour, specifically
his creating of some many abusive /pages/, not merely fights on pages, way
crosses the line of acceptable behaviour. RK's behaviour is no justification
for EoT's response, which breaks just about every rule of wikiettique
imaginable. EoT has been repeatedly asked to stop creating these pages, and
has refused to do so. Jimbo has made it clear that he HAS to stop, yet he
has continued with the behaviour. In the circumstances I see no alternative
but to ban EoT. /Any/ user who acted in that manner in my view forfeits the
right to be on wikipedia.
RK's behaviour is grossly unacceptable and needs to be confronted also.
Wrong as his behaviour has been, in tone and context, however, at least he
has not created a whole stream of abusive personalised subpages about his
opponents, which to my mind is a worse offence. With EoT out of the way,
Jimbo also needs to get tough with RK and warn him that his behaviour is
unacceptable and MUST stop.
I was not casting judgments on the nature of the abuse by both men against
the other and treating one as worse than the other, merely observing the
fact that one user, EoT, used a methodology that is unprecedented in wiki
history and is so far beyond the realm of acceptable behaviour that it
beggars belief. The sheer scale of that offence and consistent refusal to
stop requires nothing short of a ban.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>Martin, you really can't stop the harassment, can you? You
>really have no ability to control your rage, do you?
>
>You and Entmoots Of Trools have now created som SIX
>WIKIEPDIA PAGES dedicated to slander and harassment of me
>alone. I can't imagine how many hours you two have spent
>obsessed with me, and damaging Wikipedia in the process. So
>yeah, I do really think that you are in some clinical
>sense, obsessed (i.e. "sick"). You have spent months
>harassing me, so has Entmoots of Trools, and your
>collective harassment and libel is over the top.
>
>Again, I request a ban on both Martin (MyRedDice) and
>EntmootsOfTrools. I fail to understand why the Wikipedia
>community is still allowing them to create more and more
>Wiki sites dedicated to slander and harssment. They even
>have created fake User Talk pages, which distract readers
>from my genuine User Talk page. That itself is a bannable
>offense. Wiki Sysops have written to them and asked them
>to stop their harssment multiple times, but they refuse to
>do so. What course of action is left?
>
>Please ban these unrepentant vandals who refuse to follow
>any semblance of Wikietiquette. This is getting more than
>annoying; it is harassment (in the legal sense of the
>term), and is now bordering on dangerous.
>
>Robert (RK)
A couple of points.
1. EoT's pages are a gross abuse of a fellow user. Under no circumstances
should that treatment of anyone be tolerated.
2. I don't believe Martin handled the situation well, but I do not believe
for one moment that he was trying to harrass Robert. What he was trying to
do, wrongly in my view, but with genuine motivation, was pull together the
multitude of pages EoT has been creating, so that a decision can be taken on
them en bloc. My vote is for their immediate and complete deletion.
Please do not take what I have to say next, Robert, as a personal attack,
because it not intended to be so.
I believe that Robert is a sincere and genuine user. Nevertheless I do
believe is attacks on people have been seriously misguided. Comments about
'jew-baiting' and 'anti-semitism' were wide of the mark. Much of what went
on was simply Robert-baiting and anti-Robertism. That does not make it
right, but it is wrong to attach religious or ethnic connotations to what
has been going on. There have been cases of jew-baiting on wiki, a few
cases, and I have blocked on the most recent culprits and called for the
banning of another.
Robert's predicament reminds me of the boy who cried wolf too often. When
finally the wolf did come and the boy called for help, no-one believed him
because he had cried wolf falsely so many times. Robert's constant accusing
of a large number of people of anti-semitism and jew-baiting, genuinely
though he may have felt it (and I do accept Robert's sincerity) was a
misguided reaction. As a result, when real jew-baiting and real
anti-semitism has been expressed, people have been so fed up reacting to
false charges in the past that they have paid no heed.
Robert's attack on Martin is similarly misguided and unfair. Both are
genuine users doing what they believe is the right thing. But by over the
top attacks on a genuine user, Robert's past attacks have undermined the
power of his genuine complaints about the behaviour of EoT.
Please Robert, for your own sake, distinguish between the misguided but well
motivated actions of some people, and those, a very tiny minority, who
deserve criticism. I accept unreservedly Robert's sincerity. Unlike Adam, DW
etc Robert's clashes with people have been motivated by a genuine if
misguided honesty. But please Robert, recognise that others too who clash
with you are sincere and don't make wild and unfair allegations against
them.
Finally, in view of the constant behaviour of EoT, which is quite frankly
highly distasteful, to put it at its mildest, and deeply disrespectful of a
member of the community, and in view of his constant ignoring of appeals
from Jimbo for restraint (which he regularly deletes from his userpage) I
hereby call for the banning of EoT.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
We have a policy about no offensive usernames. But does that cover the names
of famous figures who are themselves controversial? Saddam Hussein is a
classic example. To some he is a middle east hero. To most people he was a
mass-murdering tyrant. In the circumstances it is at the very least
inadvisable to use his name as a user name (even if it produces some
farcical and comical events, as when, in reverting vandalism, I found that I
had to revert the article on Saddam Hussein to the last version by Saddam
Hussein!)
Many other world leaders are themselves controversial to some large segment
of society, with their name if used being seen by some potential potential
wiki users somewhere. One needs only to think of the attitude in parts of
the US towards France to see the problems using 'Jacques Chirac' , the
problems with using 'George Bush' given how he is seen some people
internationally. Ditto with 'Tony Blair', 'Yasser Arafat', 'Ariel Sharon',
'Auguste Pinochet', 'Hugo Chavez', 'Ian Paisley', 'Josef Stalin', 'Chairman
Mao', 'Benito Mussolini', any of the names of the candidates in the
Californian recall election, 'Gerry Adams', 'Maggie Thatcher' etc. The
problem is that, if even the user is absolutely credible in their edits, a
bad choice of name can leave people with suspicions of bias that leads to
others constantly targeting their edits for constant checks. NPOV should
also guide choice of user names, because a proliferation of controversial
names could lead visitors to doubt the neutrality of the site if a snap
visit shows edits being carried out by politically controversial user nics.
Having 'Saddam Hussein' edit articles on the Kurds, for example, could raise
all sorts of fears about impartiality, as would having 'Yasser Arafat'
editing [[Israel]], or 'Lord Wigery' editing pages on Northern Ireland. The
edits may well be fine, but people would approach them with suspicion and
presume a bias until shown otherwise. We have enough to worry about in terms
of NPOV in articles, without badly chosen names creating ill-feeling,
tensions and suspicions also.
I think out policy on user nics should be:
--------
Remember when using a user nic that a controversial name that may colour
other users' perspective on your own credibility or political vewpoint. In
addition remember that wikipedia is a world-wide source book and so take
care in selecting a name to avoid anything that might potentially cause
offence to someone from a different culture, religious or ethnic group. As
such wikipedia recommends that users avoid
1. Names of twentieth or twenty-first century politicians, military or
religious figures or events;
2. Any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing
the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.
3. The following specific public names or any variation should not under any
circumstances be used due to their controversial nature and potential
offence:
Adolf Hitler,
Josef Stalin,
Benito Mussolini,
Saddam Hussein,
Chairman Mao,
Pol Pot,
Yasser Arafat,
Ariel Sharon.
4. Historic names (19th century or earlier) may of course be used but the
less controversial the better. People should be able to judge you purely on
your contributions, not an emotional response to a potentially controversial
nickname. Avoiding an offensive or insensitive name is in your own interest.
So do please be careful. Remember you are working as part of a community.
Show everyone else the respect for their beliefs that you expect them to
show to you.
---------
This might seem a small point now, as we don't have that many controversial
user nics. But as wiki grows the number of new users and usernics will
rocket. If two or three people use them and get away with it, the likelihood
is that more new members will follow, on the basis that 'if he can call
himself 'x', then I will call myself 'y'.' Sooner or later we will face the
problem. It makes sense to do it now, with the small community, than try to
deal with it when there are twice or three times as many users, by which
time offence may already have been caused to some, and potential wikipedians
frightened off by the impression given by the unfortunate use of badly
chosen names.
Any observations?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> What course of action is left?
Here's my suggestion:
1. Robert accepts that it is wrong to insult people on
Wikipedia, apologises, and agrees not to do so in the
future.
2. Those who Robert has insulted accept his apology,
forgive him, and agree not to
bring up the subject in the future.
3. Robert accepts that it is wrong to ask for bona
fide Wikipedians to be banned, apologises, and stops
doing so.
4. Those who Robert has asked to be banned accept his
apology, forgive him, and agree not to bring up the
subject in the future.
5. Robert accepts that it is wrong to accuse bona fide
Wikipedians of being vandals, apologises, and stops
doing so.
6. Those who Robert has accused of being vandals
accept his apology, forgive him, and agree not to
bring up the subject in the future.
7. Those who created all the junk on this topic accept
that it was wrong to create so much junk, apologise
for doing so, and agree not to do so in the future.
8. Those who were affected by all the junk on the
subject accept the collective apology, forgive those
who created it, and agree not to bring up the subject
in the future.
9. All the junk on this topic, scattered over various
talk pages, user talk pages, ban pages, mailing lists,
etc, is all sent to the big recycle bin in the sky.
10. Time passes.
11. People start to forgive.
12. People start to forget.
This 12 step procedure will make everyone happy, I
believe. However, I welcome alternative suggestions,
or improvements. If you want to edit it, it'll be at
[[Wikipedia:Community case RK]], replacing the big
pile of junk previously located there.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to sort out step
zero: filling in my tax return... ;-)
Love,
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
------
It is not entirely clear to me if we have to "close
the eyes and pretend we see nothing wrong in the talk
pages" after we agreed to mutually apology and forgive
and be good girls and good boys.
But I know RK has agreed he might have been mistaking
on some points about me, and he agreed to rephrase all
the junk he wrote about me, and I have agreed to talk
to him politely again and to try not to hold him bad
feelings and assume good faith from him.
However, the rephrasing and removing of insults was
not done. The comments will stay forever in article
history, and the mailing lists are very well known by
google, and the articles quite easy to retrieve since
he spread my name in all the message titles, with
quite unpleasant statements to me. Type Anthere in
google, one of his messages is there, first page.
So, I ask "How are those people on the net, who find
such comments about me on mailing lists, and such
comments about me on talk pages are gonna understand
them and know where they come from if all references
about the current debate are gone ? No where.
So, I stay polite, and I could forgive in time, but I
do not expect to *forget* *anytime in the near future*.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>Ec wrote
>There are likely some who feel offended by it, but that is the personal
>choice of the humourless.
It is not merely a case of having no sense of humour if you are someone of
Kurdish descent and you find a contributor editing an article on the Kurds
'humously' using the name of the man who committed genocide against the
Kurds. Nor is it a matter of a sense of humour if a contributor to an
article on the Jewish holocaust called himself after a leading nazi, with
the edit history listing a line of edits by Adolf Hitler. Or if someone as
a joke decided that all their edits to articles on child sex abuse use the
name of some notorious paedophile like Fr. Geoghan or Fr. Brendan Smyth.
We already have had users posing as Palestinian militants, as Stalinists, as
extreme militarist Americans, etc. We have had tactless and provocative
names used. It isn't a case of 'humourless' people taking offence. It is the
real danger that users may be put off wiki if they come on and find
distasteful, deliberately offensive names being used. 98% of names used as
inoffensive, It makes sense to plan now to ensure a small body of users
aren't used, rather than leaving it until damage has been done, offence
caused and people turned away before we deal with problem. (We have already
had one user, a multiple banned user, who came on any 'posed' as a
paedophile, asking if we had any 'nice' pictures of children to download.
Obviously he wasn't a real paedophile: if he was, he couldn't have drawn
attention to himself, just taken any images we had. It was part of that sick
user's game of trying to cause offence.)
JT
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
SUCKY IDEA! Sorry JT.
If you want to be offensive in an totally open environment nothing's
gonna stop you. Or rather people who are easily offended shouldn't visit
WP. Rules suck! Recommendations are good though (if you do not have to
follow them).
Nevertheless you wont see any:
Adolf Hilter
Ariel Sharon
Josef Stalin
Mussolini
Yassir Arafat
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Nigger
Usama Bin Laden
George W Bush
Muhammed
Around. Why? Cause I just registered them - Problem solved!
BL
Jimbo says "leave a clean paper trail"
Tried that. As a result Mr. Robert Kaiser has shifted his position subtly from telling
me that I'm "engaged in neo-Nazi-like revisionism", back in May, to telling me that
I'm "mentally ill", and should "fuck off, you sicko". And plenty more in the intervening
weeks.
Colour me unimpressed.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
A problem is exists with one IP user who continually tried to add in a
couple of paragraphs to [[Israel]], including the line:
However, there was a systematic ethnic-cleanising process in Israel, which
many Zionists prefer to call "transportation" instead of ehtnic-cleansing.
Efforts to remove his additions produced the following summaries -
There facts stated are 100% accurate. Isn't it interesting that you are
uncomfortable with FACTS and the TRUTH ??
enhancement to the article --- I am going to gather my friends for a whole
range of contributions if you keep forcing your POV. don't delete facts.
I have blocked this person now under a number of different IPs. In view of
the above threat of bring friends along to the page, and because of his
constant using of different IPs, I protected the page, which everyone on the
page seemed to agree was the best temporary measure. I went to unprotect it
today to find that under the third IP (which I subsequently blocked) he had
left the following message on the talk page:
::Zionist definition of "vandal": A persoan who presents some facts about
Israel which demonstrate the racist nature of this state. hmmmmm ... kinda
like how the victims of Israeli atrocities are called "terrorists".
::Which part of the facts that I added to the article were "vandalism" you
fucking hypocrite? There was not a single word of abuse, misinformation or
even inaccuracy in what I added to the article. The more you ugly baboons
try to control things and hide the truth, the more you contribute to your
own perennial replusiveness.
I don't want to have to keep protecting the page; it unfair to everyone else
who wants to edit it. But the nature of the edits are guaranteed to trigger
nasty edit wars, and the comments above show the rascist agenda he is
following.
Since I started writing this, he has since added to the talk page
Listen you fucking moron, I can use whatever language I want in the
duscussion pages. The article however, are a different story. If I used such
language in the article, then you had a point. But as itis, ones doens't
need to be a genius to realize what you are doing. You are zeroing on on a
cheap excuse to keep the page protected. The discussion pages are not part
of the encyclopaedia and even a dumb fuckhead like you knows this.
I have blocked him again. The blocks are on 68.120.204.62, 68.120.205.147
and 68.120.205.218. Any suggestions about deal with this bigot?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
[Crossposted to <wikien-L>, since it discusses an edit of the main page.]
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
>I personally always try to say 'GNU-free' rather than 'open content',
>even though the Wikipedia front page says 'open content'. I have no
>particular political axe to grind, so I use the term that doesn't seem
>to upset anyway. :-)
Then it should say "free and open content".
I'll change it right now!
-- Toby