I received this recently in my personal email (I have further comments below):
----- Forwarded message ----- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:04:36 -0700 (PDT) From: _KhlER3L _khl@heh.ca X-X-Sender: _khl@tornado.he.net To: toby@math.ucr.edu Subject: wiki upset
Hello toby,
I'm sorry to email this to you since it has nothing to do with you, but finding contact information for the person I actually want to talk to seems to be impossible.
This evening, I fell upon Wikipedia for the first time in maybe a year, and began to make some edits I thought useful. The first of which was to add to the [[gay]] definition a note that gay could only be used to describe androphiles, and not pederasts. I admit this was a smarmy entry, but it was not offensive, and it contained links to additional information.
My next entry was http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA_Purges which attempted to outline, via a chronology, the events which lead upto the purges of minority groups from the International Gay and Lesbian Association. Admittedly, it ended on a bitter note. However, the bulk of the entry, some 10 or 15 paragraphs, were neutral and informative.
I then added a page on 'pederast', which said 'A man who is sexually attracted to boys aged 12-18.'
I then edited the NAMBLA page to remove the name of an individual, as well as make the wording more neutral. I went on to read and respond to a 'discuss this page' entry which described NAMBLA as a COINTELPRO operation of the government in order to discredit the gay movement.
I finally went to edit a user page, _KhlER3L. When I went to save it, I found out I was IP banned:
User is blocked
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jtdirl. The reason given is this: This user is almost certainly DW again. He is revisiting paedophile and pederast links he added or edited again before his last banning and is from the same IP as he once used before.
You may contact Jtdirl or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
Return to Main Page.
Well, for his/her information, I am not 'DW' and I do not appreciate being IP banned simply for 'revisting paedophile and pederast links' (as if it were a crime). I think that if I feel that the Wikipedia does not offer the right balance of information on these topics, then I should be free to add my information. Apparently Jtdirl does not appreciate anyone espousing a believe contrary to his/her own about NAMBLA, pederasty and pedophlia, even though he/she is in no way an expert on such matters, having a PhD in Irish History.
Maybe in his/her expert opinion, the NAMBLA information page should be used to attack a particular individual by name? I didn't think so, and edited the name out. And I also felt that encyclopedic entries should not contain a totality of anti- views, but also attempt to be somewhat neutral.
And the Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for pederast, but instead forwards pederasty to pedophilia, a totally wrong attribution. My pederast entry has been removed, probably by Jtdirl. Why is a truthful, and to-the-point, no-bullshit entry being deleted? I think I know the answer.
As well, my ILGA Purges entry, which contained about 15 paragraphs detailing the build up and aftermath of the ILGA Purges, was deleted entirely. Again, I think I know the reason why.
Anyway, this ban goes against the rule of IP blocking which states:
<i>This is meant solely to discourage persistent junk edits. IP banning is not meant to be used against unpopular opinions.</i>
My contributions were not junk edits, or attempts to disrupt the Wikipedia service. They were attempts at rectifying what I view as biased entries which serve mainly to attack minority groups and organizations without giving another perspective.
I ask that my IP be unbanned at the earliest possible moment, and that Jtdirl be reprimanded for unfairly banning a contributer based soley on the topic of the content he was offering. Maybe Jtdirl should stop being the pedophile-content cop and keep to topics he/she has something to contribute to.
Thank you, Toby, for looking over this. Please get back to me on whether or not Wikipedia will be reinstating my access.
Sincerely, Jason Garrison
_KhlER3L@heh.ca (514) 495-1421 Montreal, Quebec http://heh.ca/ ----- End forwarded message -----
Note that both <heh.ca> and <tornado.he.net> (also in Received: headers) are in the 64.62.xxx.xxx IP range, the same range as the blocked IP. This IP edited a few articles, some with prior POV problems; and some of his edits introduced further POV problems. But this is understandable if the user is new, and correctable. Thus the question is whether Jtdirl's identification of him as DW is fair. I'm not very familiar with DW, so I'm not a good judge of this; I ask other users that are familiar with DW to review the case.
I sent _KhlER3L a reply briefly explaining the situation with DW, and assuring him that Jtdirl's actions were motivated by those problems, not by any desire to be "the pedophile-content cop". I can post this email and _KhlER3L's further replies if you like.
-- Toby
Re: user contributing information on pedophilia that was deleted upon identification as "DW"
I saw most of this last night, and was somewhat confused by the delete of [[ILGA Purges]], because it struck me as mostly factual and encyclopedic information that should've been kept, with fairly minor and fixable POV problems. I didn't say anything because I'm completely unfamiliar with the situation with DW. But in any case, perhaps that article should be undeleted and NPOV'ed rather than simply removed. Most of the other articles aren't particularly interesting though ([[pederast]] is a dictionary definition, for example).
Perhaps this discussion should continue on the wiki somewhere?
-Mark
Toby-
I'm sorry to email this to you since it has nothing to do with you, but finding contact information for the person I actually want to talk to seems to be impossible.
I have unblocked the user and restored some of his edits. There was not enough evidence that he is DW to block him. I have also sent him a mail asking him to create a user account.
Regards,
Erik
The below cmplaint by an unfairly banned and wiped user -- as first reported by Jt is exactly why the notion of jumping to revert someones edits merely based on a whirly notion of a slight resemblance to someone banned -- is a bad idea, was a bad idea, and will forever be a bad idea.
In light of this basic fact, that any edits can only can judged on its own merits, that only true vandalism is truly identifiable, and that more tactful approaches are always necessary for dealing with anyone outside of the category of "vandal. To do otherwise would be to continue asserting a misconception that would lead to the loss of more good (but misguided) editors. ( This is not to say that we shouldnt trail someone if we're suspicious of them -- thats half the fun of the 'Pedia.)
--S---
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
I received this recently in my personal email (I have further comments below):
----- Forwarded message ----- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:04:36 -0700 (PDT) From: _KhlER3L _khl@heh.ca X-X-Sender: _khl@tornado.he.net To: toby@math.ucr.edu Subject: wiki upset
Hello toby,
I'm sorry to email this to you since it has nothing to do with you, but finding contact information for the person I actually want to talk to seems to be impossible.
This evening, I fell upon Wikipedia for the first time in maybe a year, and began to make some edits I thought useful. The first of which was to add to the [[gay]] definition a note that gay could only be used to describe androphiles, and not pederasts. I admit this was a smarmy entry, but it was not offensive, and it contained links to additional information.
My next entry was http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA_Purges which attempted to outline, via a chronology, the events which lead upto the purges of minority groups from the International Gay and Lesbian Association. Admittedly, it ended on a bitter note. However, the bulk of the entry, some 10 or 15 paragraphs, were neutral and informative.
I then added a page on 'pederast', which said 'A man who is sexually attracted to boys aged 12-18.'
I then edited the NAMBLA page to remove the name of an individual, as well as make the wording more neutral. I went on to read and respond to a 'discuss this page' entry which described NAMBLA as a COINTELPRO operation of the government in order to discredit the gay movement.
I finally went to edit a user page, _KhlER3L. When I went to save it, I found out I was IP banned:
User is blocked
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jtdirl. The reason given is this: This user is almost certainly DW again. He is revisiting paedophile and pederast links he added or edited again before his last banning and is from the same IP as he once used before.
You may contact Jtdirl or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
Return to Main Page.
Well, for his/her information, I am not 'DW' and I do not appreciate being IP banned simply for 'revisting paedophile and pederast links' (as if it were a crime). I think that if I feel that the Wikipedia does not offer the right balance of information on these topics, then I should be free to add my information. Apparently Jtdirl does not appreciate anyone espousing a believe contrary to his/her own about NAMBLA, pederasty and pedophlia, even though he/she is in no way an expert on such matters, having a PhD in Irish History.
Maybe in his/her expert opinion, the NAMBLA information page should be used to attack a particular individual by name? I didn't think so, and edited the name out. And I also felt that encyclopedic entries should not contain a totality of anti- views, but also attempt to be somewhat neutral.
And the Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for pederast, but instead forwards pederasty to pedophilia, a totally wrong attribution. My pederast entry has been removed, probably by Jtdirl. Why is a truthful, and to-the-point, no-bullshit entry being deleted? I think I know the answer.
As well, my ILGA Purges entry, which contained about 15 paragraphs detailing the build up and aftermath of the ILGA Purges, was deleted entirely. Again, I think I know the reason why.
Anyway, this ban goes against the rule of IP blocking which states:
<i>This is meant solely to discourage persistent junk edits. IP banning is not meant to be used against unpopular opinions.</i>
My contributions were not junk edits, or attempts to disrupt the Wikipedia service. They were attempts at rectifying what I view as biased entries which serve mainly to attack minority groups and organizations without giving another perspective.
I ask that my IP be unbanned at the earliest possible moment, and that Jtdirl be reprimanded for unfairly banning a contributer based soley on the topic of the content he was offering. Maybe Jtdirl should stop being the pedophile-content cop and keep to topics he/she has something to contribute to.
Thank you, Toby, for looking over this. Please get back to me on whether or not Wikipedia will be reinstating my access.
Sincerely, Jason Garrison
_KhlER3L@heh.ca (514) 495-1421 Montreal, Quebec http://heh.ca/ ----- End forwarded message -----
Note that both <heh.ca> and <tornado.he.net> (also in Received: headers) are in the 64.62.xxx.xxx IP range, the same range as the blocked IP. This IP edited a few articles, some with prior POV problems; and some of his edits introduced further POV problems. But this is understandable if the user is new, and correctable. Thus the question is whether Jtdirl's identification of him as DW is fair. I'm not very familiar with DW, so I'm not a good judge of this; I ask other users that are familiar with DW to review the case.
I sent _KhlER3L a reply briefly explaining the situation with DW, and assuring him that Jtdirl's actions were motivated by those problems, not by any desire to be "the pedophile-content cop". I can post this email and _KhlER3L's further replies if you like.
-- Toby _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
steve vertigo wrote:
The below cmplaint by an unfairly banned and wiped user -- as first reported by Jt is exactly why the notion of jumping to revert someones edits merely based on a whirly notion of a slight resemblance to someone banned -- is a bad idea, was a bad idea, and will forever be a bad idea.
It was unfortunate, but not unfair. The ban was appropriate in the circumstances described. The key tidbit is that this was someone who had the unfortunate bad luck to be on an ip number previously used by someone who is a known problem to us.
--Jimbo