On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote: .
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now? An indefinite ban for that editor maybe? Why is it ok to write that his mother was a Cuban immigrant, but it is not ok to write that Harold Shipman's mother was a Jewish immigrant?
I'm astonished not that people are willing to defend the poster Abu Hamza (nothing wrong with that of course), but that they are insisting on ripping single offences free from their context and then saying "Hey, this looks perfectly innocent." No, there's nothing wrong with someone making a good faith, sourced edit to Harold Shipman indicating his religious background. "Hey, Abu Hamza is the equivalent of Johnny Smith!" Sure, and my real name might be Davey Duke too, but we don't have to be purposefully naive when we look at these issues. In isolation, we can make everything he did look perfectly innocent, but when a user takes the screen name of a man (quoting WP) convicted of "racial hatred and incitement to murder", shares the same obsession with Harold Shipman's supposed Jewish background as the convicted Hamza, inserts text dumps from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" into articles and claims he's merely "quoting the Talmud", and calls respected editors Zionists in a way that's clearly intended as a slur, well, you don't need a weatherman to know which way this wind is blowing. This clearly adds up to a pattern of behavior that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and you aren't doing him any favors by defending his behavior. That will just encourage him to perpetuate this patten of offenses and he will get banned again or his ban will just never be permanently lifted. If you really want to stick up for this guy, try to get him to improve his behavior, don't try to rationalize it for him.