Definitely a difficult area you have chosen. I should point out my personal position which is that while theoretically a "white" nationalist organization could exit which is not a neonazi organization, in practice, they do not. Your posting, "Until now I've been relying on fair play. I could of course bring this up at the Stormfront.org board and have dozens of posters there come here and join this controversy.", implies your position is congruent with that of Stormfront.org which appears to be a typical neonazi organization. My personal position is that in the United States, just as in Germany, such advocacy and organizations should be criminalized, illegal, and dealt with in Wikipedia articles in such a way that the racist and totalitarian aspects are emphasized. In other words, I'm not a civil libertarian.
This however is not Wikipedia policy which welcomes all viewpoints and provides that they be dealt with from a neutral point of view.
We recently banned a user with a neonazi orientation on the basis that he had made personal attacks. (Which he did do, many of them, often out of frustration as his viewpoint did not prevail). At that time we piously stated that our action was not based on his point of view editing. (After all, as we have recently discussed in the matter of 172 who edits from a leftist point of view, point of view editing is not grounds for banning).
This statement which you made in a previous post is unarguable, "I DO expect it to fairly present WNist beliefs as held by WNs themselves, rather than present a anti-WN p.o.v." This presents a problem, however, as the premier White Nationalist, Adolf Hitler, consistently misrepresented his position, to put it bluntly, he was a lier on a mass scale. Any article written on White Nationalist positions from a neutral point of view must in fairness point out that history of outrageous lying. It is expressed today, for example, in holocaust denial.
Although I have not examined every edit you made you appear to have consientiously followed the requirements Wikipedia makes for courtesy and while you may, as a new user, have broken the 3 revert rule, I could not find any grounds for banning you, or even disciplining you. You made controverial edits but attempted to discuss them on the talk pages and in large part your assertions were unanswered there.
You appear to be of Slavic ancestry, judging from your name. Why on earth would you support such a philosophy when Hitler's intent was to enslave (and probably ultimately exterminate) all Slavs?
I am not going to unban you, your ban is almost up anyway, and perhaps you did violate the 3 revert rule. However you seem to have been improperly banned and ought not to be provided you continue to edit in a constructive and courteous way. For you own protection you need to continue to attempt to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages as you have been doing.
Fred, (of "mongrel" ancestory).
From: Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:09:24 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Protesting my ban
Please note that that's a lie, what I really wrote is ready for all to see on the "white nationalism" discussion page.
It's also a lie that I reverted the article. I edited in changes, my changes were reverted against guidelines, and I subsequently edited them back in. This may or may not be a technicality, but judging by what I read on reversions at Wikipedia, it isn't.
This whole thing about the links is plain SILLY. If you want a better balance of anti-WN links, add them yourself. Deleting the links I've added doesn't accomplish your goal, unless your goal is to prevent links to WN or "WNish" sites.
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Please note that this user has already threatened to invite posters on a White nationalist website to "visit" WIkipedia in order to make sure that the [[White nationalism]] article matches their POV. And his comment that he has not reverted an article is untrue. See the history of [[White nationalism]]. He has also spam linked the White nationalism article, but I've used up my three reverts.
RickK
Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by Guanaco, and to request that I be unbanned immediately. All of the charges he made against me ("linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further") are false, which should be made obvious to anyone who reviews the "white nationalism" wikipedia page and its discussion page.
First, I didn't "linkspam." I posted 8 new links, which brought the total to 9. The entry for "Zionism" has 21 external links, of which the vast majority are to Zionist sites.
Second, I have not ever made a single revert to a Wikipedia entry, as a review of the logs should show
I didn't even know what a revert was until a half hour or so ago. My entries HAVE been reverted multiple times by other users, on the other hand, and I think the reverts violate Wikipedia guidelines.
Third, I did not threaten to call a "puppet army," that is patently absurd, which anyone reviewing the discussion page can clearly see.
This harrassment is ridiculous an uncalled-for. It's perfectly clear that I'm being harrassed because of my beliefs.
My IP is 172.173.127.231 My Wikipedia user id is Svigor.
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l