We're pathological because we wish to demonize Nazis?
Seriously, what the hell?
Skyring skyring at gmail.com: I'm far more interest in the pathology shown in this discussion, where some editors want to eliminate any input by other editors who don't share their views, and demonise them into the bargain.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
How is the demonization of any particular group encyclopedic? Or NPOV?
SV
--- Rob gamaliel8@yahoo.com wrote:
We're pathological because we wish to demonize Nazis?
Seriously, what the hell?
Skyring skyring at gmail.com: I'm far more interest in the pathology shown in this discussion, where some editors want to eliminate any input by other editors who don't share their views, and demonise them into the bargain.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
How is the demonization of any particular group encyclopedic? Or NPOV?
You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis? They're just regular loveable folk, like the rest of us. They just happen to want to oppress and/or kill Jews, Blacks, etc. There's nothing demonic about that. And don't forget all the good they've done, and continute to do, for humanity. Yes, there was the small matter of world conflagration and mass genocide - but the movement was young, and who can honestly say they didn't make mistakes when they too were youthful? Are we going to condemn them simply for being a bit over-enthusiastic?
To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I say "look deep within yourself - if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in you, not in them".
Wikilove,
Jay.
Nobody ever asked you to like anybody, nor did anybody say Nazi's were good. Rather people have suggested that we give some attention to foundation issues, blocking policy, controversial blocks policy, and most importantly NPOV.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
How is the demonization of any particular group encyclopedic? Or NPOV?
You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis? They're just regular loveable folk, like the rest of us. They just happen to want to oppress and/or kill Jews, Blacks, etc. There's nothing demonic about that. And don't forget all the good they've done, and continute to do, for humanity. Yes, there was the small matter of world conflagration and mass genocide - but the movement was young, and who can honestly say they didn't make mistakes when they too were youthful? Are we going to condemn them simply for being a bit over-enthusiastic?
To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I say "look deep within yourself - if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in you, not in them".
Wikilove,
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi, Jay.
Even as parody this wasn't very effective. No-one in this discussion has said anything like that. The point is that it is not Wikipedia's job to demonize Nazis. We should provide the facts on National Socialism - its tenets, practice and history - in a neutral encyclopedic way. Using this information our readers can decide for themselves whether it's demonic or not.
Regards, Haukur
You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis? They're just regular loveable folk, like the rest of us. They just happen to want to oppress and/or kill Jews, Blacks, etc. There's nothing demonic about that. And don't forget all the good they've done, and continute to do, for humanity. Yes, there was the small matter of world conflagration and mass genocide - but the movement was young, and who can honestly say they didn't make mistakes when they too were youthful? Are we going to condemn them simply for being a bit over-enthusiastic?
To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I say "look deep within yourself
if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in you, not in them".
Wikilove,
Jay.
If you don't ever call anything evil, you also lose the power to present anything as "Good." I disagree that we should refain from taking a moral stance and let the facts just sort themselves out because of this. For example, if I refuse to call a serial killer 'evil' and just write what he did, I also lose the ability to call the detecitive who caught him a 'good' person, as all I can do is present the facts. I would also technically lose the ability to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'. I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to lack moral judgement as well. On 8/25/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Hi, Jay.
Even as parody this wasn't very effective. No-one in this discussion has said anything like that. The point is that it is not Wikipedia's job to demonize Nazis. We should provide the facts on National Socialism - its tenets, practice and history - in a neutral encyclopedic way. Using this information our readers can decide for themselves whether it's demonic or not.
Regards, Haukur
You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis? They're just regular loveable folk, like the rest of us. They just happen to want to oppress and/or kill Jews, Blacks, etc. There's nothing demonic about that. And don't forget all the good they've done, and continute to do, for humanity. Yes, there was the small matter of world conflagration and mass genocide - but the movement was young, and who can honestly say they didn't make mistakes when they too were youthful? Are we going to condemn them simply for being a bit over-enthusiastic?
To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I say "look deep within yourself
if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in you, not in them".
Wikilove,
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How can you possibly include moral judgement without expressing a POV? If lots of people think that a serial killer is evil, then why not just describe their views (eg., "describing Grubbins as a "wicked man", Judge Goodheart sentenced him to 25 years" or "In a Times poll, 72% of participants described him as the most evil man on the planet"), rather than endorsing them? It's just as effective, and NPOV.
On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:17, Measure wrote:
I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to lack moral judgement as well.
The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article has a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV.
On 8/25/05, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
How can you possibly include moral judgement without expressing a POV? If lots of people think that a serial killer is evil, then why not just describe their views (eg., "describing Grubbins as a "wicked man", Judge Goodheart sentenced him to 25 years" or "In a Times poll, 72% of participants described him as the most evil man on the planet"), rather than endorsing them? It's just as effective, and NPOV.
On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:17, Measure wrote:
I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has
to
lack moral judgement as well.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced, or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/25/05, Measure measure@gmail.com wrote:
The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article has a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV.
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced, or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.
Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.
Jay.
IIRC, the person in question wasnt "banned" --they were blocked indefinitely, which doesnt mean permanently. Any sysop can go unblock him, if they were so motivated (I think Ill be too busy, myself). But FEI, only two cases would make such a block permanent: A ruling by the esteemed but understaffed Arbcom, or a ruling by the benefcient & dedicated founder-at-large.
One belonging to the former should have a keen understanding of the circumstances and reasons under which the Arbcom was founded. IAC, what needs to happen now is the DR process needs to catch up in growth to scale with the community. "Bigger government"? Government needs to be in proportion to the society, otherwise we fall back to the rule by decrees, which, irrespective of the particular case in question should be taken as a sign of DR's failure in any particular circumstance, and weakening of DR. In this case, some seem to be suggesting that DR can't handle certain types of trolls, which I think is rather sophistic.
SV
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on
differences of POV, because that violates both the
letter AND the
spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.
Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.
Jay.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.
Jay.
I went back through the logs to try to discover why Amalekite was banned, and I cannot find a reason <i>on Wikipedia</i> other than statements that boil down to "I disagree with his POV" or "I don't like his edits". I haven't found anything to indicate that this users' edits were in bad faith, even though I would revert or rephrase every one that I've seen.
I've looked a little (but only a little) at the external Stormfront site, and only saw roughly the equivalent of a "watchlist" of people whose POVs are opposite this person's.
I suspect I'm not looking in the right places.
You seem to know better than most people in this discussion exactly why Amalekite was banned. Can you explain it fully for those of us who don't know, or cannot find the reason?
Finally, on somewhat offtopic and mildly humorous note, I find this block a lot more than just a little ironic: "13:55, 21 August 2005, "Neutrality" blocked "POV destroyer" (infinite) (Inappropriate username.)"
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
I went back through the logs to try to discover why Amalekite was banned, and I cannot find a reason <i>on Wikipedia</i> other than statements that boil down to "I disagree with his POV" or "I don't like his edits". I haven't found anything to indicate that this users' edits were in bad faith, even though I would revert or rephrase every one that I've seen.
I've looked a little (but only a little) at the external Stormfront site, and only saw roughly the equivalent of a "watchlist" of people whose POVs are opposite this person's.
I suspect I'm not looking in the right places.
You seem to know better than most people in this discussion exactly why Amalekite was banned. Can you explain it fully for those of us who don't know, or cannot find the reason?
Perhaps you can re-read my previous posting on the list, as well as the postings of those who banned him; I don't see the point in repetition.
By the way, for those who be wondering where the name "Amalekite" comes from, in the Bible, the nation of Amalek was the sworn enemy of the Israelites.
Jay.
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Perhaps you can re-read my previous posting on the list, as well as the postings of those who banned him; I don't see the point in repetition.
Again, I don't find anything to suport the ban in compliance with our policies.
Even in re-reading, it appears we've banned someone solely for their beliefs and philosophy; have I made an error?
Calvinball is fine if everyone wants to play, but I think this discussion proves that there are a significant number of members who would rather take the moral high ground and let this user nuke himself with his actions instead of joining him in the cesspool of prejudice and discrimination.
By the way, for those who be wondering where the name "Amalekite" comes from, in the Bible, the nation of Amalek was the sworn enemy of the Israelites.
Jay.
This is no surprise to me. The Israelites were sworn enemies of the Amalekites as well.
Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites! Genocide, pure and simple, and merciless. Documented in 1 Samuel 15. It was Yahweh's test of Saul to see if he could follow distasteful instructions to the letter, for he was later scolded and had the role of King taken away from him for showing the slightest mercy.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
..."He (Saul) took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword"
..."And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal."
If the original ban was for the choice of user name, and the editor permitted to come back with a different name, that would make sense, if we also wouldn't allow a user name of "Israelite". However, if we decide to retroactively apply this standard, we should start with an apology.
(Apologize to a Nazi? WTF? Well, the moral high ground does demand an apology when you make a mistake that harms another.)
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites!
Well, not completely, apparently; Haman, the descendant of Agag, appears to have survived.
If the original ban was for the choice of user name,
The ban obviously had nothing to do with username choice; however, the editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in identifying with those who attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is targeted for genocide by them. In either case, it is indicative of his mindset.
Jay.
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites!
Well, not completely, apparently; Haman, the descendant of Agag, appears to have survived.
Let's not split hairs over the Israeli genocide of Amalekites.
If the original ban was for the choice of user name,
The ban obviously had nothing to do with username choice; however, the editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in identifying with those who attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is targeted for genocide by them. In either case, it is indicative of his mindset.
Jay.
Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites? By being attacked and killed down to the very last suckling infant by the order of Yahweh? I guess it's true then, that the victors write the history books. Being enemies is one thing; committing genocide is quite another. "Attempted to commit genocide" by being the victim of genocide. Wow.
If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset? "Indicative of his mindset" is not a good excuse for persecuting someone, which is what we've continued to do by leaving the indefinite block in place, given that no other policy than "IAR" supports the ban.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites? etc.
Perhaps you can continue this discussion of your understanding of Biblical history and theology on the Wikien-bible mail-list.
If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset? "Indicative of his mindset" is not a good excuse for persecuting someone,
Please review the [[Straw man]] article.
Jay.
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account.
Sarah
On 8/25/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account.
Sarah
I don't believe that any one administrator is the gatekeeper for who remains blocked, which is why I haven't made a request to any one administrator to unblock the user. I am NOT petitioning you to do so now.
Instead, I was (and still am) hoping that an administrator would decide for themselves that we need remain on the moral high ground, and take this action of their own volition. Because of the higher trust granted to them, I was actually hoping an arbitrator would make this moral stand and do so.
If you are willing, I would like a clear explanation of what policy grounds this user was blocked indefinitely. If it is "IAR", I hope you will apologize for the block, if in fact someone removes it. I think this discussion is likely to continue as long as people don't understand the reasoning for what appears to be preemptive action against an editor.
If I am incorrect, and there is supporting policy other than "Calvinball", I assure you that you'll have my apology, and five properly sourced, cited, content contributing edits to any Wikipedia articles of your choice as token of my sincerity.
It is not my intent to be disruptive, insulting, or otherwise abrasive. Wikipedia was founded on some great ideals. I think that this is a distinct and unique opportunity to show that those ideals apply in all situations, and that the moral high ground is worth claiming, even as we proceed to produce an NPOV final product.
On 8/25/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe that any one administrator is the gatekeeper for who remains blocked, which is why I haven't made a request to any one administrator to unblock the user.
Well, actually, that's how it normally works. Admins usually don't undo blocks unless a clear error has been made. Normally when we disagree with a block, we discuss it with the blocking admin. My objection in this case (apart from what Amalekite did by posting his Wikipedia ethnic hit list, which I see as grounds for a block) was that the unblocking admin didn't discuss it with Homeontherange, who was the blocking admin. Now that I've reblocked, it would be appreciated if people with concerns would discuss the block directly with me or with Homeontherange.
Sarah
Vis a vis Godwin's law, this discussion should have been over before it started.
-Snowspinner
On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:28 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/26/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Vis a vis Godwin's law, this discussion should have been over before it started.
What, mentioning Nazis in a discussion of Nazis?
I'd like to start by apologizing to Sarah for twice referring to her as 'Rachel' up-thread. I only just realized that. I have no excuse for this carelessness. I'm sorry, Sarah.
- - -
Sarah wrote:
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account.
I have already petitioned you directly, in words as clear as I can manage, to lift your block on User:Amalekite. I'm doing so again now.
I do not see any advantage in taking the discussion to private mail. On the contrary I think it is most natural to keep this kind of decision making and the associated arguments in the open. For one thing it gives us recorded precedents to base future decisions on.
If the mailing list has grown tired of the topic we can relocate to a talk page of your choice - though I would personally prefer to finish the discussion here since it started here.
My arguments against keeping User:Amalekite blocked can be found in a number of my previous posts to this list. Instead of going through them all again I'd like to emphasize the following meta-argument.
It has become clear that there is no consensus for the ban of User:Amalekite. At least five people (Michael, Jack, Matt, Lisa and myself) have expressed their opposition to it in no uncertain terms. Several other people have expressed some reservations or ambivalence towards the action. In my opinion summary banning of an account is only appropriate in the case of undisputed vandals and trolls. If it turns out that a summarily banned user is not, in fact, an undisputed vandal/troll the ban on him or her should be lifted.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
It has become clear that there is no consensus for the ban of
User:Amalekite. At least five people (Michael, Jack, Matt, Lisa and myself) have expressed their opposition to it in no uncertain terms. Several other people have expressed some reservations or ambivalence towards the action. In my opinion summary banning of an account is only appropriate in the case of undisputed vandals and trolls. If it turns out that a summarily banned user is not, in fact, an undisputed vandal/troll the ban on him or her should be lifted.
Regards, Haukur
I said this privately and I will say it publicly. I support the permanent block on Amalekite. He can edit Nazipedia all he wants now. In case we all forgot, Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not providing a platform for every nutbag with an agenda to spill his nonsense all over us. At risk of extending this thread beyond its already unnaturally long life, I'll leave it at that.
- Ryan
I said this privately and I will say it publicly. I support the permanent block on Amalekite. He can edit Nazipedia all he wants now. In case we all forgot, Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not providing a platform for every nutbag with an agenda to spill his nonsense all over us.
We all agree that the goal of the project is to create an encyclopedia. A free, comprehensive, accurate encyclopedia. The best encyclopedia in the world. The reason some of us are spending all this time in debating the ban of an individual user is that we believe that to create the best encyclopedia in the world we need a community that is open, friendly, accountable, fair and helpful.
In particular we need to be open to people of all creeds and opinions. We need to be especially friendly to newbies. We need to be accountable for the actions of our administrators. And we need to be fair and helpful to everyone who wants to contribute.
The quality of our encyclopedia is directly related to the quality of the community that is building it. Let's take good care of it.
Regards, Haukur
I find the subject important because I came to the wikipedia to edit (donating my time and work) under the asumption that it was an open project, w NPOV as its guiding policy. I don't want to be a part of a project that excludes racists, anymore than I want to be part of a project that excludes Jews, or arabs, communists or what-have-you.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/26/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I said this privately and I will say it publicly. I support the permanent block on Amalekite. He can edit Nazipedia all he wants now. In case we all forgot, Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not providing a platform for every nutbag with an agenda to spill his nonsense all over us.
We all agree that the goal of the project is to create an encyclopedia. A free, comprehensive, accurate encyclopedia. The best encyclopedia in the world. The reason some of us are spending all this time in debating the ban of an individual user is that we believe that to create the best encyclopedia in the world we need a community that is open, friendly, accountable, fair and helpful.
In particular we need to be open to people of all creeds and opinions. We need to be especially friendly to newbies. We need to be accountable for the actions of our administrators. And we need to be fair and helpful to everyone who wants to contribute.
The quality of our encyclopedia is directly related to the quality of the community that is building it. Let's take good care of it.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/26/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I find the subject important because I came to the wikipedia to edit (donating my time and work) under the asumption that it was an open project, w NPOV as its guiding policy. I don't want to be a part of a project that excludes racists, anymore than I want to be part of a project that excludes Jews, or arabs, communists or what-have-you.
Jack (Sam Spade)
This would not be the first time someone has been blocked from wikipedia for being a nazi and while on the previous occasion I pulled the block on this occastion there are other factors byond the individuals political views.
Yeah, I agree, things are more complicated than everyone (including me) is articulating. I guess what it really boils down to is [[Wikipedia:Controvesial blocks]] vrs. [[WP:IAR]], and not for the first time...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/26/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I find the subject important because I came to the wikipedia to edit (donating my time and work) under the asumption that it was an open project, w NPOV as its guiding policy. I don't want to be a part of a project that excludes racists, anymore than I want to be part of a project that excludes Jews, or arabs, communists or what-have-you.
Jack (Sam Spade)
This would not be the first time someone has been blocked from wikipedia for being a nazi and while on the previous occasion I pulled the block on this occastion there are other factors byond the individuals political views.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account.
I am of mixed feelings on the block itself. I was close to doing it myself, but I also think that some of the pragmatic concerns are realistic. Blocking might only lead to worse problems (sock puppets, claims of injustice which he can use to rally his own community to waste even more of our time, etc.). It's a tough call.
I am not of mixed feelings about you and your choice to do the block. I am 100% completely supportive of both the block, and of your very reasonable offer to undo it if the community doesn't agree.
One thing I will always support is good admins making thoughtful but bold decisions with good faith and for the good of the project.
--Jimbo
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites? etc.
Perhaps you can continue this discussion of your understanding of Biblical history and theology on the Wikien-bible mail-list.
It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users' name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user. Now that your point has struck your own buttocks, naturally you wish to discard it. Fine. It is not a bannable offense to choose an exterminated nation as a user name. That's all I was explaining.
If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset? "Indicative of his mindset" is not a good excuse for persecuting someone,
Please review the [[Straw man]] article.
Jay.
Again, you were the one to make an assumption of Amalekite's mindset part of your point. It is not a straw man argument to then discuss how we should proceed if your assumption is correct. You established the tangent, not I. I believe you should review the straw man article more carefully yourself.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users' name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user.
Your inference was not implied by my statement, which was merely explaining why the user chose the name, for those who were not familiar with it.
Now that your point has struck your own buttocks,
A point I never made cannot strike my own buttocks.
It is not a bannable offense to choose an exterminated nation as a user name. That's all I was explaining.
Read [[Straw man]] again. And I'm done feeding you for today as well.
Jay.
Ive made an offlist request to SlimVirgin to either unblock or take it directly to the Arbcom, who may apply a temp-block, if they like.
We can now all try to forget this thread ever happened, --as Im sure everybody wants to do.
New topic: Something,anything else.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
New topic: Something,anything else.
Getting a raise
An act of kindness usually associated with a type of employment. Getting a raise is considered after time has past between the employer and employee; used as an incentive to determine the person(s) worth to the company. Based in earlier history of capitalism, more often than not the employer is a cheapskate or miser and will not bestow a raise on said employee. These employers are bastards.
On 25/08/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
New topic: Something,anything else.
We've had it noticed we just passed 700,000 articles on en.wiki. Somewhat less noted, in the past few days we also passed 400,000 accounts registered... which is a rather nice thing to note.
[[WP:CP]] needs some serious attention. I've been spending as much time as I can on it but it is growing faster than I can remove stuff.
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users' name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user.
Your inference was not implied by my statement, which was merely explaining why the user chose the name, for those who were not familiar with it.
Yeah, sure, that's why you said "indicative of his mindset".
You wrote: "the editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in identifying with those who attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is targeted for genocide by them. In either case, it is indicative of his mindset."
Now you say "indicative of his mindset" has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Then why did you mention it?
Now that your point has struck your own buttocks,
A point I never made cannot strike my own buttocks.
Not if you deny it ever happened, it cannot.
It is not a bannable offense to choose an exterminated nation as a user name. That's all I was explaining.
Read [[Straw man]] again. And I'm done feeding you for today as well.
Jay.
If you re-read everything I've written on this subject carefully, I think you'll find that addressing me as if I were a troll is a very hostile and unfair thing to do.
I've taken this subject seriously the entire time, and every single comment has been with the intent of improving Wikipedia.
If you consider that trolling, then I think your judgement is poorer than the average editor.
If you don't ever call anything evil, you also lose the power to present anything as "Good."
Agreed.
For example, if I refuse to call a serial killer 'evil' and just write what he did, I also lose the ability to call the detecitive who caught him a 'good' person, as all I can do is present the facts.
Exactly.
I would also technically lose the ability to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'.
You're getting the hang of this :)
I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to lack moral judgement as well.
I think we should refrain from explicit moral judgment as much as we can. Here's an example of an edit I made in that spirit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margrethe_II_of_Denmark&diff=1...
Queen Margrethe is a chain smoker. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing or neither is none of Wikipedia's business.
Regards, Haukur
On 8/25/05, Measure measure@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't ever call anything evil, you also lose the power to present anything as "Good." I disagree that we should refain from taking a moral stance and let the facts just sort themselves out because of this. For example, if I refuse to call a serial killer 'evil' and just write what he did, I also lose the ability to call the detecitive who caught him a 'good' person, as all I can do is present the facts. I would also technically lose the ability to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'. I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to lack moral judgement as well.
Wikipedia is not a place for moral judgements. We don't need the power to present anything as "good" or call anything "evil".
In fact, we should <i>avoid</i> all temptation to present things as "good" or "evil".
Making moral judgements is not the realm of encyclopedia writers.
Instead, we report the moral judgements of others in the world, properly sourced and cited.
That is what NPOV is.
From: Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is
No-one in this discussion has said anything like that. The point is that it is not Wikipedia's job to demonize Nazis.
That was a strawman point, and exposed as such. The issue was about banning *one* user, who edited disruptively, targetted a list of Wikipedians for attack, and said pretty nasty and vile things about them in particular, and Jews in general.
We should provide the facts on National Socialism - its tenets, practice and history - in a neutral encyclopedic way.
And this has been done, though I hardly see how it is relevant to the discussion.
Jay.
That was a strawman point, and exposed as such.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. I stand corrected. Interpreting the message of parodies is probably not one of my strong points. I honestly thought you were talking about the demonization of nazis, rather than the banning of User:Amalekite.
The issue was about banning *one* user, who edited disruptively, targetted a list of Wikipedians for attack, and said pretty nasty and vile things about them in particular, and Jews in general.
He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users. Among the reasons that have been mentioned is that we can rarely be completely certain that a Wikipedia user is identical to a person posting on another site. Another reason is that the content of such sites can change quickly, making review of decisions based on it difficult. A third reason is that it can be a daunting task to read through off site forums for evidence in such a case, especially if the forum in question contains material which many Wikipedians are likely to find distasteful.
I'm personally 99% certain that User:Amalekite is the same person as the Frank Sinatra poster on the Stormfront forums (rather than just pretending to be the same person). That poster did compile a list of Wikipedians - but not for attack, as far as I can see. His own words are:
"Monitor the activities of the first 5 on the list (watch their user contribution pages and their user talk pages) and you'll have a good idea of what the entire gang is up to."
Nevertheless I can understand that people might be uncomfortable with having their user page on such a list in that particular forum.
The Frank Sinatra poster certainly did say nasty things about the Wikipedians on the top of his list - calling them "ruthless and vicious" among other things. He also made some more general remarks on Jews but I don't feel that's relevant.
Regards, Haukur
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
The issue was about banning *one* user, who edited disruptively, targetted a list of Wikipedians for attack, and said pretty nasty and vile things about them in particular, and Jews in general.
He did not edit disruptively.
Quite, I agree with Haukur. I don't see that he edited disruptively or called for Wikipedia or its users to be attacked. He made some very obnoxious comments, but we don't normally block people for their behaviour outside of the project.
I propose we lift the ban, as it A) wasn't made in accordance with our policy; and B) there is no consensus for the ban.
If, as people have claimed, he is here only to disrupt the project, then this will become immediately apparent from his edits, and he can be swiftly dealt with at that point.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting insults on a website attacking Wikipedia. He posted links to a quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home address and his "followers". I was out of town and frightened enough to have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period. I don't think anyone disputes the ethics of this. (Fortunately, he was arrested on felony charges in an unrelated matter, and as far as I know, he's in prison now.)
I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly (but only slightly) less obvious.
--Jimbo
*sigh* :(
On 8/27/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting insults on a website attacking Wikipedia. He posted links to a quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home address and his "followers". I was out of town and frightened enough to have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period. I don't think anyone disputes the ethics of this. (Fortunately, he was arrested on felony charges in an unrelated matter, and as far as I know, he's in prison now.)
I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly (but only slightly) less obvious.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
I don't personally hold such an absolute position. In exceptional cases, like the one you describe below, I'd agree that off-site actions should be taken into account.
As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting insults on a website attacking Wikipedia. He posted links to a quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home address and his "followers". I was out of town and frightened enough to have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period. I don't think anyone disputes the ethics of this.
I certainly don't. I'd have done the same.
I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly (but only slightly) less obvious.
I consider them very different indeed. Amelekite made absolutely no attempt to link Wikipedian user names to real identities of people. Nor did he even imply that this was possible. Nor did he call for harassment of the people in question, even within Wikipedia. He called for monitoring of their actions and fighting what he perceived as their bias. He made no threats whatsoever, direct or implied.
He did use nasty vocabulary in referring to the people on his list. If he'd done it inside Wikipedia I would not have objected to a block. But since it obviously wasn't his intention that his rude words would ever reach the ears of the people he applied them to I feel that we should give less weight to them (but certainly some weight). I also feel we should give weight to the facts that he
a) edited in good faith on Wikipedia, as shown by his contribution log
b) called for any new recruits to the 'pedia to respect our rules and the Neutral Point of View
c) promoted legitimate user names and adherence to the rules as the best way of avoiding blocks.
Summing all this up I find the block unwarranted. I can understand that reasonable people may disagree and may want to give more weight to other aspects of the issue. It's a close call.
Regards, Haukur
Summing all this up I find the block unwarranted. I can understand that reasonable people may disagree and may want to give more weight to other aspects of the issue. It's a close call.
I might add a bit to that. Originally I felt that the block could not be defended but as the discussion progressed I came to see that it was a much closer call than I'd originally thought and that there are good arguments both ways. Though there is clearly no consensus, I'm willing to defer to what appears to be the majority opinion.
Regards, Haukur