In a message dated 7/3/2004 9:26:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rkscience100(a)yahoo.com writes:
Ray's attacks on the Jews for not forgiving Nazis is not
only off-topic, but outrageously hateful.
Personally, I feel that your response is even more hateful, Robert. Ray
commented on an obervation he makes--whether it is right or wrong is another story,
as is whether the question of anyone can actually give it any absolute moral
score.
It is certainly not hateful. Many Jews including survivors--especially
survivors--debate among themselves whether they are able to forgive the Nazis for
what they did. In his book "The Wallflower," Simon Wiesenthal tells the story of
a sickly SS man who was dying in a concentration camp, and who extended his
hand to the orderly, Wiesenthal, asking for forgiveness with his dying breath.
Wiesenthal refused to give it, but, he writes, the problem plagued him for the
rest of his life. In fact, that is the theme of the book, which includes
essays on that very topic by leading Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals.
Apparently, Robert, even a Nazi-hunter like Wiesenthal was plagued by the question of
forgiveness, one that you so brusequely dismiss.
This September, the museum where I work is hosting a conference called
"Forgiveness After the Holocaust," which I am helping to organize. At this event,
leading scholars and prominent survivors will share diverse views on the
subject. I actually formulated the four questions that serve as the theme. I dont
remember them all off hand, but they were something to the effect of Can there be
forgiveness? Who can forgive? etc. I would hardly call such a discussion
"outrageously hateful." We are discussing it. Does Ray not have a right to voice
his opinion on it?
While going through some material, I found a proclamation, issued by a woman
who was a victim of Mengele's experiments in Auschwitz. The proclamation was
made in Auschwitz, as she stood beside one of the Nazi doctors who performed
brutal experiments on Jews and others. In the proclamation, she called for
forgiveness, sixty years later. Apparently, a film was made about this too.
Personally, I have ambiguous feelings about her statement, but that does not detract
from the fact that she, a survivor made it. Is that "outrageously hateful"?
Does the fact that the statement appears in the state-mandated Holocaust
curriculum of New Jersey make that curriculum hateful? Does it make New Jersey
hateful?
You ended your post to Ray saying "If so, then you are a sick man who needs
mental help, immediately. If not, then you have an anti-Semitic double
standard." Is the measure of needing mental help (or alternately, being anti-Semitic)
whether that person stands in opposition to you? Is there only one way to view
complex issues and dilemmas? That in itself is a fascistic statement: there
is only one truth, one legitimate perspective, and we must quash everything
that challenges it.
Then you continue: "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." I have the guts to oppose this violent hatespeech. Sadly,
however, I see you as being guilty of it.
Danny
PS. Despite your subject line, I am hardpressed to find anything particularly
"violent" in Ray's comment.
Reading various people's response to my charge of anti-Semitism (on my talk
page and here) I realize that some people either do not understand my basic
assumptions about hate-speech. Since this matter extends beyond WHEELER or
the early National Socialism talk page to a matter of general policy, I
want to clarify my assumptions here. Obviously if people disagree with
these assumptions, they will disagree with my call to ban WHEELER. My
assumptions by the way are based on personal experience but also my
understanding of U.S. Hate Speech laws (not that Wikipedia is obliged to
follow them, but that they reflect the thinking of many other people) and
Sartre's book Anti-Semite and Jew (not that Wikipedia is obliged to follow
French existentialist thought -- I just think it is a thoughtful book, not
just about anti-Semitism but about hate speech in general). Here I explain
what I assume at some length, because my point is not about some specific
conflict between me (or AndyL) and WHEELER; it is a general point of which
WHEELER's comment happens to be one example.
1) hate speech is categorically different from offensive or uncivil
remarks. Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain level
of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately offensive
remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks are offensive
because they are controversial and play a constructive role in an
argument. I agree with these points in principle, but do not think they
apply to hate speech. For example, if someone writes "Sl, you are a
shithead," well, yeah, I would take that as an uncivil and offensive
remark. But I would not call it hate speech. Nor would I call it
anti-Semitism. WHEELER observed that just because a dog barks at a Jew
doesn't make the dog anti-Semitic. Fair enough. Just because I am Jewish
does not mean that all attacks on me are anti-Semitic. But if the dog
barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew," that is anti-Semitic. Here is the
difference: the first attack attacks me as an individual; the second
attacks me as a member of a class or group of people. For this reason I
respectfully disagree with Anthere's sympathetic remarks. The point is not
that I feel hurt or injured. These are personal feelings and I have always
strived not to let personal feelings affect my involvement in
Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism is not wrong because it is hurtful on an
individual or personal level; anti-Semitism attacks a whole
group. Anti-Semitism is impersonal by nature. By the way, it is for this
reason that non-Jews can and ought to oppose anti-Semitism, just as Whites
can oppose racism against Blacks and Jews can oppose racism against
Arabs. You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose something that
is wrong. In fact, WHEELER didn't hurt my feelings because I do not care
what WHEELER thinks about me at all. I simply oppose hate speech and
anti-Semitism in all forms because it is wrong.
2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This is because facts are
contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. It is a fact that some
Jews have been murderers. But are they murderers because they are
Jewish? That they were (or are) Jewish is almost certainly incidental to
their having murdered (or robbed a bank, or gone through a red light). It
may very well be a fact that several or even many prison guards in the
Soviet Union were Jewish. But they weren't camp guards because they were
Jewish. To then talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not
about a factual claim we can research or question. There is no point in
even questioning it as a factual claim. It is absurd on its face and the
only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them not as
individuals but as members of a class. By the way, sometimes such
correlations may be valid. Criminologists often look for correlations
between behavior and race, class, or gender. I just think it is obvious
that in this particular case WHEELER was not making an empirical claim
subject to argument; he was using a slur in order to attack (I think
Jrosenzweig and AndyL have provided sufficient evidence, for those who do
not think this is obvious)
3) There is a difference between what one feels or thinks, and how one
expresses it publicly. Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an
apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels. I don't
think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell, I am not
sure it is possible to control one's own feelings. And if it were
possible, I don't think it would be desirable. But we (not just
government, but society or community) regulates how people express there
feelings all the time. We can think what we like, but we know that in some
contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say what we think; we
regulate ourselves, personally, as well. WHEELER, for example, can think
whatever he wants. But to participate in a conversation, there are some
things he won't say. And to participate in a community there are some
things he shouldn't say. Where we draw the line is a separate matter that
I address below -- here I just want to emphasize that it is what WHEELER
wrote on one of our pages, not what he thinks, that I think we should
concern ourselves with.
4) Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. I think an open society
should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have pointed
out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech. I agree. But that does
not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here. We should tolerate
a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable byproducts of heated
exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high level of ultimately empty
chatter on talk pages as necessary byproducts of the editing process. We
should certainly encourage controversy. But there is simply no benefit to
Wikipedia from hate speech, and there is no need for us to provide people
with an outlet for hate speech. God knows, there are plenty of other
outlets on the internet for that. For the same reason, there should be no
need for me to go (as one person suggested) to an attorney general to try
to prosecute WHEELER for hate speech. What WHEELER wrote may very well be
legal -- so he can write it elsewhere. I just don't want to see someone
use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech. Wikipedia policy is not nor
should be the same thing as state or federal law.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
He has an IP address of 217.26.162.142 listed on his user page. Would
one of the developers mind checking out whether that matches up to
EntmootsOfTrolls or JRR Trollkien?
--Michael Snow
> > But I have to respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you
>really
> > want to forbid newbies from contributing to anything controversial?
>
>No. Where you went wrong - i.e. put yourself in a false position - was to
>persist in editing. You may not have known what rule you were infringing,
>but there is a rule. You were then blocked, I assume for 24 hours, which
>except for Wikiholics is hardly the end of the world. You don't have to
>like it.
>
>What I'm pointing out here is that there is a learning curve. The point
>about going straight for the most contentious topics is that the learning
>curve is going to be very steep. One can figure out why this must be.
>_Every_ non-wiki technical person I have explained wiki to, has explained
>back 'can't possibly work'. They are confident that a free-for-all in
>editing must be a disaster. Wikipedia shows they are missing something.
>They are missing the community self-policing effect. If a wiki works - not
>all do - the policing of graffiti on [[Ronald Reagan]] is going to be
>effective.
>
>Now your version of the learning curve may seem to be 'your rights and how
>to get them'. The system is set up so this is secondary to 'freedom to
>edit'. Has to be that way. You'd do better to learn something about
>editing, in the shallower waters.
This time, you're so full of it. What learning curve? Learn that some ******
abuse their power to get their will through? Newbie didn't do anything
special except to make a very truthfull addition to a page and was harassed
by two reaganite sysops. Neither did newbie break any rule and shouldn't be
banned. In fact, since neither of them has apologised yet and continue to
act like pussies I suggest both of them should be banned for 24 hours. It's
hardly the end of the world. They don't have to like it.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Chris,
I understand and respect your position. I think,
however, it is not sufficiently clear that Sl's post
here was the result of the four months of difficulty
many of us have had in working with WHEELER. He has
made frequent Anti-Semitic remarks, as well as being
blatantly rude to a number of editors (questioning
their competence, their belief in God at one point,
etc.). Suggesting a ban isn't in violation with
wikilove at this point, I think. I, Kim Bruning, Sl,
Sam Spade, and numerous other editors have done our
best to encourage WHEELER to do good here, and have
attempted to correct him when he has abused our good
faith. Enough is enough. That's my opinion.
Certainly a call for a ban here isn't going to get
results -- that's an AC measure. But I think Sl is
posting here because those of us who have tried to
work with WHEELER are frustrated to the point of
giving up. I hope you, Chris, will begin to work on
compromise and wikilove with WHEELER -- if you are
successful, you're a better man than I am. And it may
be that you will discover that the quoted comment
isn't one misinterpretation by SL of a researched fact
of WHEELER's, but rather it is the tip of an iceberg
of bigotry and intolerance. I wish you luck in your
work with him.
James R. (Jwrosenzweig)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>The block is for anon editors only. If you log in you will not be
blocked
Well a quick test proves me completely wrong about that. Blocking an IP
address does block logged in users with the same IP. Is this deliberate?
Also I've checked the block list and the above IP isn't on it. The only
similar address is 203.166.96.232/29 blocked by Pakaran but this range
block should not be blocking 203.166.76.237 so unless something is wrong
that can't be it. I also checked the blocklog and 203.166.76.237 nor any
range blocks that I could see were there so I am at a loss. Perhaps
someone else can help this bloke?
Theresa
The first post did not work out.
Let's try it again...
The fully copied across statem gives another reason to avoid sending
attachments. I still suspect that the phone Osama bin laden spam mail
that I got originated from here.
Arno
On Jun 30, 2004, at 3:48 AM, Arno M wrote:
> There seems to be a tendency amongst some users to e-mail using
> attachments.
>
> Could I remind them that this will produce irritating "An HTML
> attachment was scrubbed...
> " error messages? Just send them in plain text.
On Jun 30, 2004, at 6:00 AM, rkscience100 at yahoo.com wrote:
> Your document is attached.
[<document.pif> not quoted]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Er, that's not good. If we're blocking attachments, why do worms
like this get through?
Peter
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
> Is there any way that I can change my IP address so that I edit again before 2005?
>What processes can legitimate users have when a person with a
>similar IP address use to change the problems in order to avoid being
>caught when a lengthy ban is put in place?
You don't need to change your IP. Just create a named account. The block is for anon editors only. If you log in you will not be blocked. (Or at least you shouldn't be, let us know if you are)
Go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Userlogin&returnto=Speci…
choose a username and a password and that's it. You do not have to give your email address if you don't want to. You do not have to give any personal information.
HTH
Theresa
Folks,
I have been a member of WIkipedia forp approximately five months under the username capitalistroadster. On Wednesday night and Friday night Eastern Australia I attempted to create an article only to be advised that I had been blocked by administrator 21804 for vandalism. As I have not been warned for vandalism at any time, I can only assume that it was for the IP address 203.166.76.237 listed on the message.
A quick viewing of the blocked list shows that a user with a similar IP address has been blocked for six months for repeated vandalism. I do not dispute that this user should be banned for a lengthy period for acts which were obviously serious and repeated vandalism on behalf of that person or persons.
I am concerned that on the face of it, I will also be banned for six months. While there has been a couple of occasions where I have been unable to edit for the misbehaviour for this person, I was happy to wear it and resume editing when the ban had expired.
Is there any way that I can change my IP address so that I edit again before 2005? What processes can legitimate users have when a person with a similar IP address use to change the problems in order to avoid being caught when a lengthy ban is put in place?
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.