--- Rob gamaliel8@yahoo.com wrote:
It's either block him now or block him later. He's not interested in NPOV or building an encyclopedia or anything else we value. He's a Nazi and all he wants to do is fight the Jews. Perhaps his edits look fine now, but there's always the chance he is engaging in or will engage in a less obvious form of racist vandalism by subtly skewing articles. Whatever it is, it will happen and it will escalate. On SF they are quite openly talking about ways to infiltrate Wikipedia so they can skew the content the way they want it skewed. That should be enough to ban them on sight here.
We should ban people based on what they do on Wikipedia, not for what they do elsewhere, and *certainly* not for what they think.
I've decided to unblock this user as I see nothing in his edit history that merits an immediate ban.
I'm quite shocked that people would take this approach.
-- 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
On 8/23/05, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I've decided to unblock this user as I see nothing in his edit history that merits an immediate ban.
I'm quite shocked that people would take this approach.
Matt unblocked [[User:Amalekite]] and I reblocked him, then we exchanged posts as follows in case others are interested:
Hi Matt, I've reblocked the above. I don't normally reblock when another admin unblocks (in fact, I don't think I've ever done it), but this case is exceptional. Amalekite is [[Alex Linder]], the owner-operator of [[Vanguard News Network]]. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the [[Stormfront]] website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption, which is why [[User:Homeontherange]] blocked him. The issue has been discussed on the mailing list. [[User:SlimVirgin]] 07:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin, I don't like getting into conflict, particularly with things like block wars and protect wars, so I'm unhappy about this. But in this case I think that this is simply unjust; we should block people indefinitely based on their actions, not based on what they say on other websites, and not because they're neo-Nazis. If it is, as you assert, clear that he's trying to disrupt Wikipedia, then it will surely quickly become apparent, and we can block him then, right? But otherwise, I think it must be innocent until proven guilty. [[User:Matt Crypto]] 07:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I take your point, Matt, but I feel you ought to have discussed this with the blocking admin, rather than undoing the block. I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]], but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response. [[User:SlimVirgin]] 07:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I take your point, Matt, but I feel you ought to have discussed this with the blocking admin, rather than undoing the block. I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia.
It is a list of those belonging to a "Zionist cabal". That's not a statement of ethnicity. I personally find it more amusing than offensive but I understand that people can legitimately feel differently. Perhaps this action is worthy of a ban but I would have preferred a more formal procedure preceding it.
He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]], but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies.
As far as I can see it was another poster who made that suggestion. User:Amalekite replied with this:
"Signing up for a Wikipedia account and editing articles under that account instead of editing anonymously will greatly reduce your chances of being banned. It's much harder for them to claim you're a "vandal" if you've been making valid contributions to Wikipedia regularly, and kicking off a registered user is a much bigger deal and requires more justification on their part than banning an anonymous user. Signing up for an account there is easy "
I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response.
In a charitable interpretation he tried to recruit new editors who would agree with his POV on a particular issue within compliance of Wikipedia rules. I've tried that too - with much the same luck...
In my personal opinion, and assuming I have the facts right, the user in question should be unblocked again.
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response.
In a charitable interpretation he tried to recruit new editors who would agree with his POV on a particular issue within compliance of Wikipedia rules. I've tried that too - with much the same luck...
In my personal opinion, and assuming I have the facts right, the user in question should be unblocked again.
I agree. If we block people from editing Wikipedia because of what they may or may not have said somewhere other than Wikipedia, or because we feel threatened by them, then we are... well, Godwin was right.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
It is a list of those belonging to a "Zionist cabal". That's not a statement of ethnicity.
There are several threads, and if you read them all, you'll see that when Amalekite says Zionists, he means Jews. In fact, the Stormfront moderator eventually asks why he doesn't say what he means, though he's more straightforward elsewhere when he talks about "[t]he gang of kikes at Wikipedia." http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
In a charitable interpretation he tried to recruit new editors who would agree with his POV on a particular issue within compliance of Wikipedia rules.
He was advocating the use of sockpuppets and open proxies, and admitted using the latter himself.
Sarah
There are several threads, and if you read them all, you'll see that when Amalekite says Zionists, he means Jews.
I'm no doubt hopelessly naive and at any rate unfamiliar with the semantics of the Stormfront message boards but even if he did mean Jews I still don't think that Stormfront post of his merits an immediate ban.
He was advocating the use of sockpuppets and open proxies, and admitted using the latter himself.
I'm sure you're right and I missed something. Could you point out the post where he advocates use of sockpuppets (as opposed to advocating the use of usernames)?
Regards, Haukur
There is nothing special about nazi's that allows you to block them on sight. In order for that to occur, some substantial policies would need to be changed. As is, someone who is a murderer IRL is allowed to edit, much less some member of an unpopular forum.
Jack (Sam Spade)
From: Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is
It is a list of those belonging to a "Zionist cabal". That's not a statement of ethnicity.
"Zionist cabal" in the sense of Zionist cabal described in the [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]]. The suggestion that people here are being labelled "Zionist" based on their political beliefs, rather than ethnicity, is, in my view, hardly credible, particularly given his other posts refering to "Jews", "kikes", "pro-Jewish bias", etc.
Jay.
It is a list of those belonging to a "Zionist cabal". That's not a statement of ethnicity.
"Zionist cabal" in the sense of Zionist cabal described in the [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]]. The suggestion that people here are being labelled "Zionist" based on their political beliefs, rather than ethnicity, is, in my view, hardly credible, particularly given his other posts refering to "Jews", "kikes", "pro-Jewish bias", etc.
I'm sure you're right and you're undoubtedly more familiar with this than I am. The exact quote is:
- - - - - The following is an incomplete list of those suspected to be members of, or to be the "useful idiots" of, the so-called "Elders of Wikipedia" (the Zionist cabal which has Wikipedia in its grip). Those at the top of the list are definite members and are the most ruthless and vicious of the bunch; those at the bottom I'm less sure about. - - - - -
I don't think this has the same meaning as "the following members of Wikipedia are Jews". And I don't think the paragraph, whatever it means, is grounds for permanent banning without warning or any formal procedure - even if we accept that people's behaviour and comments outside of Wikipedia should be taken into account.
For the record I think Sarah is a good administrator and I appreciate that she has much more experience dealing with these issues than I do.
Regards, Haukur
I would like to say that the primary goal of wikipedia is not a to be a social experiment, but to build an encyclopedia. I am a strong (very strong) supporter of due process when it comes to good faith regular contributers, but in this case we all know what kind of a guy this is. He will not help build an encyclopedia, therefore he should be blocked, regardless of his crimes on the wiki itself. There are no absolute laws on wikipedia, and I think this is a valid use of WP:IAR
--gkhan
--- Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
He will not help build an encyclopedia
How do you know that?
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
I would like to say that the primary goal of wikipedia is not a to be a social experiment, but to build an encyclopedia. I am a strong (very strong) supporter of due process when it comes to good faith regular contributers, but in this case we all know what kind of a guy this is. He will not help build an encyclopedia, therefore he should be blocked, regardless of his crimes on the wiki itself. There are no absolute laws on wikipedia, and I think this is a valid use of WP:IAR
I strongly disagree. You cannot assume he will not help build an encyclopedia because you think you "know what kind of a guy this is". He arguably already has helped build an encyclopedia. I think all of his edits were made in good faith so that even by your criterion he deserves due process.
I'm also sure Rachel acted in good faith by banning him. But since it has since become clear that there is no consensus for this ban I think it should be lifted. I would be fine with an alternative remedy - a stern warning / RfC / RfA / mentorship etc.
Regards, Haukur
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I would like to say that the primary goal of wikipedia is not a to be a social experiment, but to build an encyclopedia. I am a strong (very strong) supporter of due process when it comes to good faith regular contributers, but in this case we all know what kind of a guy this is. He will not help build an encyclopedia, therefore he should be blocked, regardless of his crimes on the wiki itself. There are no absolute laws on wikipedia, and I think this is a valid use of WP:IAR
I strongly disagree. You cannot assume he will not help build an encyclopedia because you think you "know what kind of a guy this is". He arguably already has helped build an encyclopedia. I think all of his edits were made in good faith so that even by your criterion he deserves due process.
I'm also sure Rachel acted in good faith by banning him. But since it has since become clear that there is no consensus for this ban I think it should be lifted. I would be fine with an alternative remedy - a stern warning / RfC / RfA / mentorship etc.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Exactly, the smart thing to do is encourage these guys to maintain a single account, keep an eye on them, giving neutral or friendly advice if it comes up, and taking them to task for policy violations when needed. Thats what a respectable, open project like this is ment to do.You don't beat Nazi's with their own methods. Excluding others from discussion based on politics or creed is exactly what they'd do, and exactly what I won't. If nothing else it violates most of our foundation issues, esp. NPOV.
Jack (Sam Spade)
These are some direct quotes from this guy:
"A cabal of Jews and their liberal-gentile "useful idiots" are trying to take over Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/). They have met with little resistance so far. If they succeed in this takeover, they will have expanded their overall domination of the media that much further into the internet, the last refuge for free speech."
"These bastards even *brag* about what they're doing by giving their gentile lapdogs on Wikipedia "awards"...."
"I think I've been doing a decent job of fending off these pathetic creatures so far..."
"Don't let these vampire rodents pull one more media outlet from out of our hands"
Does it really matter to you that said these things outside wikipedia?
--gkhan
Does it really matter to you that said these things outside wikipedia?
Yes. If for no other reason than the issue that requiring people to read through Stormfront pages to review Wikipedian administrative decisions is not a good thing.
But even if he had called someone a "vampire rodent" (wtf?) etc. inside Wikipedia I still don't think an immediate permanent ban would have been the right remedy.
Regards, Haukur
Yes. If for no other reason than the issue that requiring people to read through Stormfront pages to review Wikipedian administrative decisions is not a good thing.
But since we're wading through them anyway I can't resist posting this quote from an administrator at the Stormfront forum. He's addressing User:Amalekite's cabal theories:
- - - - - I think your analysis of this shows a presumption that any one who opposes WN ideas must be part of a "Zionist/Jewish cabal". I don't see that.
I have noticed very little bias on the part of Wiki editors. They actually seem to be running the place according to its free-speech principles.
It's just that a lot of people disagree with us, you know? - - - - -
- http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536&page=4
This is quite an astute analysis :)
Regards, Haukur
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
These are some direct quotes from this guy:
[...]
Does it really matter to you that said these things outside wikipedia?
Yes. While Saudi Arabia may be fine with stopping advocates of women's rights at the border, on the theory that they are certain to commit heinous crimes against the social order, I think WP should set a less medieval standard.
Pragmatically, if you pre-ban editors with open biases or goals, they will just make new logins and make the same edits quietly; just as women's advocates do now in Saudi, come to think of it. :-)
Stan
Jimbo makes some sense when he suggests it's better to have a known Stormfronter than yet another sockpuppy. However, as to the ability of this editor to make good contributions to Wikipedia: has any Stormfronter so far made any good contributions to Wikipedia? There certainly have been enough here to generalize.
jpgordon
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
These are some direct quotes from this guy:
[...]
Does it really matter to you that said these things outside wikipedia?
Yes. While Saudi Arabia may be fine with stopping advocates of women's rights at the border, on the theory that they are certain to commit heinous crimes against the social order, I think WP should set a less medieval standard.
Pragmatically, if you pre-ban editors with open biases or goals, they will just make new logins and make the same edits quietly; just as women's advocates do now in Saudi, come to think of it. :-)
Stan
Look, wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. The ability to edit an article is a privilege, not a right. I'm am not trying to set some sort of precedence (and that would be a horrible precedent indeed), but lets excercise some common sense. This guy has basically admitted on another site that he will put in pro-nazi, anti-jewish POV edits. He has made horrible statements about fellow human beings on the grounds of they having a specific race. Beyond the colour of a persons skin, this man has no respect what so ever for his rights as a person.
Is that really the kind of people we want on wikipedia? To edit is a privilige, not a right.
--gkhan
This guy has basically admitted on another site that he will put in pro-nazi, anti-jewish POV edits.
No he has not. His theory is that Wikipedia currently has an anti-nazi bias and that he will be acting in compliance with the NPOV policy in trying to balance some articles. His edit summaries, unusually detailed for a newbie, amply illustrate this. In fact he specifically calls on the people he's trying to recruit not to do any Jew-bashing:
"However, if you're going to join in on editing the Mullins article (which I hope you do), follow the rules of the place - no insults or personal attacks, no Jew-bashing (though they so richly deserve it), try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV), and stay cool, no matter how hard they push your buttons."
Interestingly he managed to get himself moderated for using ethnic slurs *on the Stormfront forum*. Let them watch over their site, we'll watch over ours.
He has made horrible statements about fellow human beings on the grounds of they having a specific race. Beyond the colour of a persons skin, this man has no respect what so ever for his rights as a person.
He may be Genghis Khan reborn for all I know but he has remained civil on Wikipedia and complied with our rules.
Is that really the kind of people we want on wikipedia?
Yes. If they make useful edits and comply with our rules and guidelines.
To edit is a privilige, not a right.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool to fight nazis.
Regards, Haukur
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
This guy has basically admitted on another site that he will put in pro-nazi, anti-jewish POV edits.
No he has not. His theory is that Wikipedia currently has an anti-nazi bias and that he will be acting in compliance with the NPOV policy in trying to balance some articles. His edit summaries, unusually detailed for a newbie, amply illustrate this. In fact he specifically calls on the people he's trying to recruit not to do any Jew-bashing:
"I need people who are intelligent, knowledgeable, with good writing skills and a capacity for logical thinking, to help defeat these bozos and overturn the hatchet job they're trying to do on Mullins."
Thats enough for me.
"However, if you're going to join in on editing the Mullins article (which I hope you do), follow the rules of the place - no insults or personal attacks, no Jew-bashing (though they so richly deserve it), try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV), and stay cool, no matter how hard they push your buttons."
He also said: "Say anything in any article which is not 100% Zionist-approved and you'll have 20 of these bastards and their sycophants gnashing at your throat within 10 minutes."
And just after your quote: "Otherwise, you'll blow your lid and they'll just resort to the classic trick of labelling you an "anti-Semite" or a "neo-Nazi" and using that as a pretext for censoring everything you say."
He is saying "don't complain, they'll block you, make your edits go under the radar and hope nobody sees you".
Interestingly he managed to get himself moderated for using ethnic slurs *on the Stormfront forum*. Let them watch over their site, we'll watch over ours.
He has made horrible statements about fellow human beings on the grounds of they having a specific race. Beyond the colour of a persons skin, this man has no respect what so ever for his rights as a person.
He may be Genghis Khan reborn for all I know but he has remained civil on Wikipedia and complied with our rules.
Maybe because that way he can make edits without getting blocked. Non?
Is that really the kind of people we want on wikipedia?
Yes. If they make useful edits and comply with our rules and guidelines.
To edit is a privilige, not a right.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool to fight nazis.
Regards, Haukur
Yes, an encyclopedia. A place where there can be a free exchange of information, not a place where people can tacitly input their (in this case horrible) POVs.
Look, he has basically said "don't say anything they don't like, then you'll get blocked" Ofcourse he is going to act curtiously!
--gkhan
[H]e has remained civil on Wikipedia and complied with our rules.
Maybe because that way he can make edits without getting blocked. Non?
Exactly. It didn't work, though.
Look, he has basically said "don't say anything they don't like, then you'll get blocked" Ofcourse he is going to act curtiously!
Oh, what a devious fellow he is.
Regards, Haukur
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Oh, what a devious fellow he is.
He's a nazi!!!!!!!!!!
--gkhan
On 8/24/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Oh, what a devious fellow he is.
He's a nazi!!!!!!!!!!
Heaven forfend that I should be reduced to defending Nazis, but, so what if a few edit WP? I'm sure that there are more than enough editors to keep an eye on them.
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.
If the rules, such as they are, are applied unfairly, then like any other human society, there will be resentment and revolt. It is interesting to note the formation of cyber militias dedicated to overthrowing or undermining the existing power structure within WP. While I strongly doubt that these militia groups would be any better in the justice and fairness stakes than the existing crew, that's rather beside the point, and if the goal is truly to write an encyclopaedia, then may I point out that it's a lot easier to do it when there aren't people firing rocket grenades into your compound.
From: Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is
This guy has basically admitted on another site that he will put in pro-nazi, anti-jewish POV edits.
No he has not. His theory is that Wikipedia currently has an anti-nazi bias and that he will be acting in compliance with the NPOV policy in trying to balance some articles.
No, he's quite specifically stated that his theory is that Wikipedia currently has a "pro-Jewish" bias, because it is run by a Jewish cabal. His edits themselves had little value, and he has encouraged people to join Wikipedia and target certain users based on their ethnicity, and to use anonymous proxies to edit (which he admits to using himself). Furthermore, he has said some pretty vile things about Wikipedians, admittedly on other boards; but if he had posted a list of Wikipedians who he thought were "niggers", I wonder if the consensus for banning him would be stronger. Perhaps the word "kike" doesn't have quite the same taboo quality. Also, how many people here would really monitor his edits, and actually spend the effort trying to figure out if they were really NPOV, aside from those he has targeted? Finally, as has been pointed out, his failure to significantly disrupt Wikipedia was not for lack of trying.
Personally I don't think that Nazis should be banned from Wikipedia simply for being Nazis/White supremacists. In fact, there are at least a couple that I know of who do edit, albeit generally unsuccessfully. As for the rest, in my experience, the complete inability of most of them to abide by policy, or even think rationally and present logical arguments, combined with their typical belligerence, gets them quickly banned anyway.
That said, I think that banning *this particular* user was justified, based on the issues listed above.
Jay.
No, he's quite specifically stated that his theory is that Wikipedia currently has a "pro-Jewish" bias, because it is run by a Jewish cabal.
True.
His edits themselves had little value, and he has encouraged people to join Wikipedia and target certain users based on their ethnicity, and to use anonymous proxies to edit (which he admits to using himself).
In the discussion I saw he pointed out that the best way to avoid being blocked was not to use anonymous proxies (although he was clearly familiar with that too) but to create a username and stick to the rules. That this method seems to have failed him does not, I think, reflect well on us. All it will do is get him back to using open proxies.
Furthermore, he has said some pretty vile things about Wikipedians, admittedly on other boards; but if he had posted a list of Wikipedians who he thought were "niggers", I wonder if the consensus for banning him would be stronger. Perhaps the word "kike" doesn't have quite the same taboo quality.
The precise ethnic slur used would not make any difference to me. As far as I know 'kike' is just as offensive as 'nigger' but I'm not a native English speaker.
Also, how many people here would really monitor his edits, and actually spend the effort trying to figure out if they were really NPOV, aside from those he has targeted?
I hereby volunteer to watch his edits and revert and comment as appropriate if he is unbanned and returns to editing. That's one. Jack, you in? Anyone else?
Finally, as has been pointed out, his failure to significantly disrupt Wikipedia was not for lack of trying.
I disagree. I don't think he had any intention of disrupting Wikipedia. He certainly did want his own POV to be better represented, though.
Regards, Haukur
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I hereby volunteer to watch his edits and revert and comment as appropriate if he is unbanned and returns to editing. That's one. Jack, you in? Anyone else?
Thanks for offering to do that, but I wonder if you realize how much work would be involved. I've done it with a few of the neo-Nazis, and it's not a question of blindly reverting. You have to rewrite their edits, because their writing is often poor; you have to resource their claims because the sources are often white-supremacist or personal websites; you have to answer their questions on talk and stay civil and respectful; you have to steer them in the direction of policy, and explain it to them many, many times.
It's not easy to do this all the while knowing that the editor (in this case) personally believes that his Jewish Wikipedian colleagues are sub-human.
Look at the response to Amalekite's post here http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
"I think it's time for the white man to use a different strategy against these semitic jew mongrels, the days of talking are over, it is time to use physical force against the jewish population, and take our country back. They are vicious vile people, either we are going to survive or them."
And others quote Alex Linder (who is Amalekite) as saying: "DEATH TO THE JEWS."
Our NPOV policy states that our edits should reflect majority and significant-minority opinion, but not the position of tiny minorities. Our NOR policy says that we publish views that have already been published by credible sources.
Amalekite represents a tiny minority of nutcases who believe that certain ethnic groups and races are not fully human and do not deserve to live. Those views are never published by credible sources. Therefore, according to our own content policies - NPOV and NOR - those views have no place in Wikipedia, except in articles specifically devoted to them, in which case great caution is needed in editing them, so that they're fair to the Nazi view but don't end up being used as a platform by them.
As David Gerard has said: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia." The encyclopedia is the thing that matters, and Amalekite was out to subvert it for the good of his own tiny-minority cause, not for the good of Wikipedia.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
It's not easy to do this all the while knowing that the editor (in this case) personally believes that his Jewish Wikipedian colleagues are sub-human.
Look at the response to Amalekite's post here http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
"I think it's time for the white man to use a different strategy against these semitic jew mongrels, the days of talking are over, it is time to use physical force against the jewish population, and take our country back. They are vicious vile people, either we are going to survive or them."
And others quote Alex Linder (who is Amalekite) as saying: "DEATH TO THE JEWS."
One thing that puzzles me is that these quotes are not firsthand from Amalekite, whose own words aren't that much different than what we see from the slew of nationalist POV warriors blathering all over talk pages now. So it sounds like we're talking about pre-banning not on the strength of a person's own statements, but on what other people are saying about him? Brings to mind a new strategy to get rid of the editors I don't like - create an external website describing their evilness, and perhaps fabricating a few statements too.
In general, our mechanism for verifying real-life identities is so poor that we should be very very reluctant to assume that any given login corresponds to any real-life person, even if the login makes such a claim. That's the real core of why I think we should only consider behavior within Wikipedia - that's all we can really know for sure about an editor.
Stan
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Look at the response to Amalekite's post here http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
One thing that puzzles me is that these quotes are not firsthand from Amalekite ... So it sounds like we're talking about pre-banning not on the strength of a person's own statements, but on what other people are saying about him?
But Amalekite runs the board. He runs [[Vanguard News Network]], and yet he's not banning the people who want the "white man" to use physical force against "semitic jew mongrels." He himself ended up having to be moderated by Stormfront because of his anti-Semitic language. It comes to something when even Stormfront starts deleting your posts.
Sarah
On 8/24/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Look at the response to Amalekite's post here http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
One thing that puzzles me is that these quotes are not firsthand from Amalekite ... So it sounds like we're talking about pre-banning not on the strength of a person's own statements, but on what other people are saying about him?
But Amalekite runs the board. He runs [[Vanguard News Network]], and yet he's not banning the people who want the "white man" to use physical force against "semitic jew mongrels." He himself ended up having to be moderated by Stormfront because of his anti-Semitic language. It comes to something when even Stormfront starts deleting your posts.
That's as may be, but you are missing the point. Perhaps innocently. You aren't quoting anything actually written by the man himself. If you were giving evidence in court, all your hearsay would be tossed out.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Look at the response to Amalekite's post here http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
One thing that puzzles me is that these quotes are not firsthand from Amalekite ... So it sounds like we're talking about pre-banning not on the strength of a person's own statements, but on what other people are saying about him?
But Amalekite runs the board. He runs [[Vanguard News Network]], and yet he's not banning the people who want the "white man" to use physical force against "semitic jew mongrels." He himself ended up having to be moderated by Stormfront because of his anti-Semitic language. It comes to something when even Stormfront starts deleting your posts.
I confess to being confused by who was doing what to who on these various boards - the evidence suggests that the same person who had to be moderated on Stormfront was also the one counseling people to be careful on NPOV when editing on WP, which is kind of an odd mix of temperance and intemperance. I wonder a) if all these people are who they appear to be, and b) how much content is real, and how much is forged. One of the bonuses of owning a website is that you can change its content however you like (witness recent whitewashing on Rush Limbaugh's website, heh heh).
Again, the only content and history we can really trust is what is under wikimedia.org.
Stan
Great point, this has all been a rather extreme abuse of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
as well as the other policies invoked along the way.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/24/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Look at the response to Amalekite's post here http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=wikipedia
One thing that puzzles me is that these quotes are not firsthand from Amalekite ... So it sounds like we're talking about pre-banning not on the strength of a person's own statements, but on what other people are saying about him?
But Amalekite runs the board. He runs [[Vanguard News Network]], and yet he's not banning the people who want the "white man" to use physical force against "semitic jew mongrels." He himself ended up having to be moderated by Stormfront because of his anti-Semitic language. It comes to something when even Stormfront starts deleting your posts.
I confess to being confused by who was doing what to who on these various boards - the evidence suggests that the same person who had to be moderated on Stormfront was also the one counseling people to be careful on NPOV when editing on WP, which is kind of an odd mix of temperance and intemperance. I wonder a) if all these people are who they appear to be, and b) how much content is real, and how much is forged. One of the bonuses of owning a website is that you can change its content however you like (witness recent whitewashing on Rush Limbaugh's website, heh heh).
Again, the only content and history we can really trust is what is under wikimedia.org.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Rachel.
Thanks for offering to do that, but I wonder if you realize how much work would be involved. I've done it with a few of the neo-Nazis, and it's not a question of blindly reverting. You have to rewrite their edits, because their writing is often poor; you have to resource their claims because the sources are often white-supremacist or personal websites; you have to answer their questions on talk and stay civil and respectful; you have to steer them in the direction of policy, and explain it to them many, many times.
Thanks for the warning. Yes, I think I do realize that. I tried rewriting the [[Eustace Mullins]] article after the User:Amalekite edit skirmish and I haven't been reverted yet. Hopefully that's a good sign.
It's not easy to do this all the while knowing that the editor (in this case) personally believes that his Jewish Wikipedian colleagues are sub-human.
I can only hope it's good exercise for the spirit.
Amalekite represents a tiny minority of nutcases who believe that certain ethnic groups and races are not fully human and do not deserve to live.
I believe this is a minority view, even within the racist movement. Other parts of the racism spectrum are, I fear, rather more common. Common enough to form a significant minority view in some cases. Exactly where on the spectrum User:Amalekite dwells I do not know but he did not seem to be pushing the idea that certain ethnic groups do not deserve to live.
I petition you: Lift your ban on the user. If he returns to editing (which I think is fairly unlikely) I'll undertake to babysit him and if he breaks any rules I'll immediately take the appropriate action.
Regards, Haukur
On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Exactly where on the spectrum User:Amalekite dwells I do not know but he did not seem to be pushing the idea that certain ethnic groups do not deserve to live.
[[Alex Linder]]'s (Amalekite's) Wikipedia article states (I haven't personally checked the link offered as a source): "According to archived correspondence at VNN involving editorial responses to readers' letters, Linder supports the idea that virtually all non-whites the world over ought to be exterminated, in order to eliminate even the possibility of racial intermixing, and their lands repopulated with white settlers." http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/letters132.htm
Sarah
[[Alex Linder]]'s (Amalekite's) Wikipedia article states (I haven't personally checked the link offered as a source): "According to archived correspondence at VNN involving editorial responses to readers' letters, Linder supports the idea that virtually all non-whites the world over ought to be exterminated, in order to eliminate even the possibility of racial intermixing, and their lands repopulated with white settlers." http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/letters132.htm
I read through that. Can't say it wasn't painful. Yes, the editor of that forum apparently wants all non-white people exterminated - except for the Japanese and the Ainu who he thinks are cool.
Revolting as this position is I don't think holding it should disqualify anyone from editing Wikipedia. I admit that I feel squalid saying that but it's the logical result of my principles and I'd prefer not to abandon them.
Regards, Haukur
I read through that. Can't say it wasn't painful. Yes, the editor of that forum apparently wants all non-white people exterminated - except for the Japanese and the Ainu who he thinks are cool.
Revolting as this position is I don't think holding it should disqualify anyone from editing Wikipedia. I admit that I feel squalid saying that but it's the logical result of my principles and I'd prefer not to abandon them.
Then again H.G. Wells advocated much the same idea (without that wussy exception for people living in Hokkaido) and I don't mind reading his books. Maybe I should.
Regards, Haukur
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
[Troll in question] supports the idea that virtually all non-whites the world over ought to be exterminated, in order to eliminate even the possibility of racial intermixing, and their lands repopulated with white settlers."
So he's basically a conservative white Republican with a nostalgia for old-style colonialism. (New colonialism is called "democracy" these days).
Just to be fair, we should look at blocking other ethno-supremacists too. Pushers of "dollar diplomacy" particularly piss me off.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
There is a problem with this. A conservative white Republican would not typically have the racist ideas this troll is said to support.
Fred
On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:37 PM, steve v wrote:
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
[Troll in question] supports the idea that virtually all non-whites the world over ought to be exterminated, in order to eliminate even the possibility of racial intermixing, and their lands repopulated with white settlers."
So he's basically a conservative white Republican with a nostalgia for old-style colonialism. (New colonialism is called "democracy" these days).
Just to be fair, we should look at blocking other ethno-supremacists too. Pushers of "dollar diplomacy" particularly piss me off.
SV
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your qualifier of "not typically" is understood to mean: "yes, there are probably some." The point is that the ideologies arent so different to make them exclusive -- and in fact they are quite similar when you get down to it. Sure its infeasible to block all bigots, but the basis for the recent argument was claimed to have been in principle --not feasibility. Its easy to play "whack a mole" when one limits oneself to whacking just one color of mole.
Hence the apparent new [[Wikipedia:Preemptive blocking policy]] should have an equitable application clause. We dont usually label users of militarist-dehumanist terms (ie. "enemy", "insurgents," and "terrorists") as "trolls," and yet from an NPOV these terms are simply disguises for a deeper undercurrent of shallow bigotry. Equitable application of the "preemptive blocking principle" would require that any use of dehumanizing terms be treated as being based in ethnic bigotry.
IAC, "preemptively" blocking anyone smells more like a lack of trust in WP's normal dispute resolution or a plain compromise of our own basic ethics than something to cheer on.
SV
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
There is a problem with this. A conservative white Republican would not typically have the racist ideas this troll is said to support.
Fred
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hence the apparent new [[Wikipedia:Preemptive blocking policy]] should have an equitable application clause.
I'd like to add that while pre-emptive blocking of known nazis has been proposed in this discussion, Rachel has explicitly denied that this is her reason for blocking User:Amalekite. In her own words:
"He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]]"
I believe her, of course, and we have every reason to trust her. Her actual reasons for the block are best given in her own words:
"Amalekite is [[Alex Linder]], the owner-operator of [[Vanguard News Network]]. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the [[Stormfront]] website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption, - - - I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]], but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response." - http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027590.html
Her reasons are contested but let's be careful not to attribute something to her which she didn't say. I'm not saying anyone is doing that - I just wanted to make things clear for those who might not have followed the discussion from the beginning.
Regards, Haukur
Sounds like a perfect application of IAR then. Am I on the list? :o
On 8/24/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Hence the apparent new [[Wikipedia:Preemptive blocking policy]] should have an equitable application clause.
I'd like to add that while pre-emptive blocking of known nazis has been proposed in this discussion, Rachel has explicitly denied that this is her reason for blocking User:Amalekite. In her own words:
"He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]]"
I believe her, of course, and we have every reason to trust her. Her actual reasons for the block are best given in her own words:
"Amalekite is [[Alex Linder]], the owner-operator of [[Vanguard News Network]]. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the [[Stormfront]] website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption,
I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]], but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response."
Her reasons are contested but let's be careful not to attribute something to her which she didn't say. I'm not saying anyone is doing that - I just wanted to make things clear for those who might not have followed the discussion from the beginning.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
20:34, 22 August 2005 SlimVirgin (added that the account is blocked indefinitely, because Amalekite is posting elsewhere that this is his homepage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amalekite&action=history
was the reasoning for violating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks
as best as I can tell. What was said later on the mailing list is another subject.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/24/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Hence the apparent new [[Wikipedia:Preemptive blocking policy]] should have an equitable application clause.
I'd like to add that while pre-emptive blocking of known nazis has been proposed in this discussion, Rachel has explicitly denied that this is her reason for blocking User:Amalekite. In her own words:
"He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]]"
I believe her, of course, and we have every reason to trust her. Her actual reasons for the block are best given in her own words:
"Amalekite is [[Alex Linder]], the owner-operator of [[Vanguard News Network]]. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the [[Stormfront]] website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption,
I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]], but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response."
Her reasons are contested but let's be careful not to attribute something to her which she didn't say. I'm not saying anyone is doing that - I just wanted to make things clear for those who might not have followed the discussion from the beginning.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reason 1: "Provocative list" - This seems like the one valid reason for a block, but this interprets the issue as one of a direct personal attack against individuals, which is unclear, as others have mentioned. Even if it were, such attacks are outside of Wikipedia, and therefore cant be dealt with through our formal process. Does Slim feel she is in a position to impose informal process? Reason 2: "Seems to be staging a major disruption" - As Matt pointed out (the only one apparently), the user in question has also admonished people to adhere to NPOV. It would at least be interesting if those of that particular right-wing extremist orientation can actually adhere to NPOV, but the block sanctions a prejudice toward the contrary. Reason 3: "Claims elsewhere that this (his userpage?) is his homepage" - Doesnt seem to have much weight at all. Reason 4: "Block was inline with IAR (ignore all rules)" - IAR trumps real policy?
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
steve v wrote:
Reason 4: "Block was inline with IAR (ignore all rules)" - IAR trumps real policy?
Well, err, yes, when appropriate[*]. IAR, NPOV, and DBAD are the three primary rules of Wikipedia ("policy trifecta", I've heard them referred to), from which all other written documentation of policy, or "real policy" as you put it, is derived, essentially. These written-down forms are mere temporary instantiations of overall policy, imperfect (as all written things are) and at any time wrong, though generally only in very slight a subtle ways by the time they've been around long enough. As David puts it (and, after some reading to find out what on Earth he was talking about ;-), I've come to agree him), Wikipedia policy is a game of "Calvinball"; 'tis not writ in stone.
I was mildly discouraged to see IAR be described as non-policy (meaning, I assumed from the wording used, that it doesn't apply, rather than that it operates as super-policy). I consider this to be a mis-appreciation of what it actually means.
* - "When appropriate" being the entire reason that we have any policy at all but the trifecta - people often have quite some difficulty understanding what is and is not all right, so extensive policy documentation is written, saying "here is an example of what is not all right"; it is not, however, complete, and is not in any way intended to be.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
steve v wrote:
Reason 1: "Provocative list" - This seems like the one valid reason for a block, but this interprets the issue as one of a direct personal attack against individuals, which is unclear, as others have mentioned. Even if it were, such attacks are outside of Wikipedia, and therefore cant be dealt with through our formal process. Does Slim feel she is in a position to impose informal process?
I don't see any reason why personal attacks of this sort can't be dealt with through our formal process in Wikipedia, no matter where they take place.
Reason 4: "Block was inline with IAR (ignore all rules)" - IAR trumps real policy?
It can. Making racist attacks on Wikipedians on a hate site may not be against any existing rule on Wikipedia. But this is why we have a fair amount of policy ambiguity, to allow people with community respect to take sensible actions (and be prepared to defend those actions, of course).
--Jimbo
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
There is a problem with this. A conservative white Republican would not typically have the racist ideas this troll is said to support.
PS: The "problem" is the focus on racial bigotry, when the real issue is ethnic bigotry in general --of which racism is merely a more overt aspect.
So while its good to call a spade a spade, its easy to single out the very overt examples while ignoring the similarities between extremist goals and philosophis in more "mainstream" views. In English:
Bombing people on claims of racial rationale is no less evil than bombing them on the basis of claimed ideological rationale, or on claims to divine purpose. Its the same thing, at the very least from the point of view of the bombed - which certainly deserves some consideration, according to NPOV.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 8/24/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Bombing people on claims of racial rationale is no less evil than bombing them on the basis of claimed ideological rationale, or on claims to divine purpose.
El C summed up the reason trying to engage extreme racists and anti-Semities in dialogue on Wikipedia is probably pointless, and why they perhaps differ in kind from other types of extremists. This from the mailing list, Feb 24:
"When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch." http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/020314.html
Sarah
Is that particular extremist clique alone in viewing other people as sub-human? Being particularly sensitive to one form of bigotry is a bit out of spirit with NPOV. El C's statement seems to be an accurate characterization of a particular view, but what principled basis for preemptive action can you make based on how one "sees" another? How does one distinguish in principle or practice those particular extremists from the those who might disparage "camelniggers," "ragheads," "gooks," "chinks," etc. though little trace of such views may be evident in their editing? Even if such is evident in their writing, making a special case of one user simply makes them special --which they are not.
Certainly someone who imposes her own informal interpretaion policy should be a bit more clear on the subject. I respectfully urge you to remove the ban and allow the normal policy path to take its course. Either the user crosses the line or he doesnt. Even with the tacit sanction or indifference to your block, your act is a needless circumvention of the formal process of dispute resolution which came to be long before you got here, and brought about in no small part through problems with the formentioned type of unilateralism.
SV
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Bombing people on claims of racial rationale is no less evil than bombing them on the basis of
claimed
ideological rationale, or on claims to divine
purpose.
El C summed up the reason trying to engage extreme racists and anti-Semities in dialogue on Wikipedia is probably pointless, and why they perhaps differ in kind from other types of extremists. This from the mailing list, Feb 24:
"When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch."
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/020314.html
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
As David Gerard has said: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia." The encyclopedia is the thing that matters,
The encyclopedia could actually be improved by someone editing who has neo-Nazi beliefs; that is, if we're serious about NPOV on articles like [[Neo-Nazism]] and so forth.
and Amalekite was out to subvert it for the good of his own tiny-minority cause, not for the good of Wikipedia.
Well, he's said some things that might make you think that. But maybe he just wants to improve Wikipedia by, as he might see it, NPOVing biased articles? Maybe he doesn't, but it's possible; he has said "follow the rules of the place - no insults or personal attacks, no Jew-bashing (though they so richly deserve it), try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV), and stay cool, no matter how hard they push your buttons."
The truth is, it's a tricky thing to divine someone's true intent from their postings in wacky forums outside of Wikipedia. It's *much* safer, not to mention more accountable and transparent, to watch their actions within Wikipedia carefully and act accordingly.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
On 8/23/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
but if he had posted a list of Wikipedians who he thought were "niggers", I wonder if the consensus for banning him would be stronger. Perhaps the word "kike" doesn't have quite the same taboo quality.
I very much doubt it. None of the people who are arguing against the ban have said anything along the lines of "calling people by racial slurs is ok". Kike certainly comes across as an offensive term to me. Just as bad as nigger.
Also,
how many people here would really monitor his edits,
Hundreds I should think. He's a fucking Nazi for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and actually spend the effort trying to figure out if they were really NPOV, aside from those he has targeted? Finally, as has been pointed out, his failure to significantly disrupt Wikipedia was not for lack of trying.
If disruption was what he wanted he'd follow willy on wheels' example. He wants to correct what he perceives as a bias.
Personally I don't think that Nazis should be banned from Wikipedia simply for being Nazis/White supremacists. In fact, there are at least a couple that I know of who do edit, albeit generally unsuccessfully. As for the rest, in my experience, the complete inability of most of them to abide by policy, or even think rationally and present logical arguments, combined with their typical belligerence, gets them quickly banned anyway.
That said, I think that banning *this particular* user was justified, based on the issues listed above.
I'm fairly sure he would have got himself banned pretty quickly anyway.
I just don't know, by banning quickly we save ourselves a lot of strife, but we do give a kind of legitimacy to some of his claims (in his eyes). I suppose time will tell on whether it was the right thing to do. He might give up in disgust, or he might be so aggrieved by his banning that he comes back to disrupt with a vengeance. Other Nazis may well think it's not worth bothering with Wikipedia or they may be so aggrieved by the banning of one of their own that previously lukewarm to the idea Nazis will come in their droves in the name of justice. We will have to wait and see.
Theresa
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I hereby volunteer to watch his edits and revert and comment as appropriate if he is unbanned and returns to editing. That's one. Jack, you in? Anyone else?
In theory yes, but I doubt he'll be unbanned, or that if he was that he would edit w that account again. This thread really drives home what I don't like about the wikipedia. Its not the goals, or the policies, its this "IAR's, admins have special rights, lets enforce our POV" crowd that makes me contemplate what I'm doing here.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Also, how many people here would really monitor his edits, and actually spend the effort trying to figure out if they were really NPOV, aside from those he has targeted?
Let me ask you in turn. How many people are going to watch all his open proxy anonymous edits and sockpuppet edits and spend the effort to figure out if they are really NPOV?
Regards, Haukur
On 8/24/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Also, how many people here would really monitor his edits, and actually spend the effort trying to figure out if they were really NPOV, aside from those he has targeted?
Let me ask you in turn. How many people are going to watch all his open proxy anonymous edits and sockpuppet edits and spend the effort to figure out if they are really NPOV?
Sun Tzu pointed out a long time ago that you don't need to defend everywhere. In fact defending everything is the same as defending nothing. The key to victory is to defend only those places that are vital to both you and the enemy and take care to retain control.
Simply keep an eye on the articles that a neonazi cares about most and when they are set down a POV course, then marshall your defenders to correct the situation.
JAY JG wrote:
Furthermore, he has said some pretty vile things about Wikipedians, admittedly on other boards; but if he had posted a list of Wikipedians who he thought were "niggers", I wonder if the consensus for banning him would be stronger. Perhaps the word "kike" doesn't have quite the same taboo quality.
For me it does.
Personally I don't think that Nazis should be banned from Wikipedia simply for being Nazis/White supremacists. In fact, there are at least a couple that I know of who do edit, albeit generally unsuccessfully. As for the rest, in my experience, the complete inability of most of them to abide by policy, or even think rationally and present logical arguments, combined with their typical belligerence, gets them quickly banned anyway.
I think that's right, and I re-iterate my promise to the community that I'm more than happy to engage in the single largest mass banning without any sort of due process at all of an entire group of Neo-Nazi users if we determine that they actually are disrupting our work in any serious way and that this action seems to be the only or best way of dealing with the problem.
Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Let me explain this a bit more. I do not believe in the "benevolent dictator" model for Wikipedia. Our project is of major historical significance, and it is not appropriate for any one person to be the benevolent dictator of all human knowledge. Obviously.
But we have retained a 'constitutional monarchy' in our system and the main reason for it is too _support_ and _make possible_ a very open system in which policy is set organically by the community and democratic processes and institutions emerge over a long period of experimentation and consensus-building. No one needs to be afraid that VfD will be hijacked, and our rules turned against us.
It is not possible for 10,000 NeoNazis (if such numbers exist) to storm into Wikipedia and take it over by subverting our organic democratic processes because I will not allow it. Period. So we don't have to overdesign those processes out of a paranoia of a hostile takeover.
But this also means that we don't need to over-react right now. We can wait and see. They'll talk a big game but just review those message boards and then look around here. A battle of wits between Wikipedians and Nazis? I know who I'm betting on.
That said, I think that banning *this particular* user was justified, based on the issues listed above.
I very much agree with that. I think posting hate speech about Wikipedia users on another site is sufficient grounds for banning, whether our current rules say so or not.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is not possible for 10,000 NeoNazis (if such numbers exist) to storm into Wikipedia and take it over by subverting our organic democratic processes because I will not allow it. Period. So we don't have to overdesign those processes out of a paranoia of a hostile takeover.
I think my point has always been that *you dont have to personally disallow it* - we, the community wont tolerate it, and theres no need to fear any great surge in one particular strain of irrationality than any other.
But this also means that we don't need to over-react right now. We can wait and see. They'll talk a big game but just review those message boards and then look around here. A battle of wits between Wikipedians and Nazis? I know who I'm betting on.
Personally speaking, I think your sense of balance is rather wise.
I very much agree with that. I think posting hate speech about Wikipedia users on another site is sufficient grounds for banning, whether our current rules say so or not.
My issue is the ability of sysops to impose "bans" at all, even if its based on policy. Blocks are one thing, but bans should have review. I think the Arbcom should accomodate a separate "case-review" facility, and that the Arbcom should grow to accomodate the growing need for clear and documented review.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
These are some direct quotes from this guy:
"A cabal of Jews and their liberal-gentile "useful idiots" are trying to take over Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/). They have met with little resistance so far. If they succeed in this takeover, they will have expanded their overall domination of the media that much further into the internet, the last refuge for free speech."
"These bastards even *brag* about what they're doing by giving their gentile lapdogs on Wikipedia "awards"...."
"I think I've been doing a decent job of fending off these pathetic creatures so far..."
"Don't let these vampire rodents pull one more media outlet from out of our hands"
Does it really matter to you that said these things outside wikipedia?
Yes, they've already said that it does matter to them. Or are you calling them liars?
I think this is grounds for blocking. It's in the same spirit as personal attacks that put users in danger.
-Snowspinner
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:04 AM, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the [[Stormfront]] website, as
SlimVirgin, MattCrypto: this is why I love Wikipedians so much. I love this kind of discussion. Assume good faith, careful reasoning, a discussion which doesn't involve personal attacks of any kind, a disagreement with a positive exploration of the deeper issues.
I'm very proud.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Matt unblocked [[User:Amalekite]] and I reblocked him, then we exchanged posts as follows in case others are interested:
Hi Matt, I've reblocked the above. I don't normally reblock when another admin unblocks (in fact, I don't think I've ever done it), but this case is exceptional. Amalekite is [[Alex Linder]], the owner-operator of [[Vanguard News Network]]. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the [[Stormfront]] website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption, which is why [[User:Homeontherange]] blocked him. The issue has been discussed on the mailing list. [[User:SlimVirgin]] 07:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin, I don't like getting into conflict, particularly with things like block wars and protect wars, so I'm unhappy about this. But in this case I think that this is simply unjust; we should block people indefinitely based on their actions, not based on what they say on other websites, and not because they're neo-Nazis. If it is, as you assert, clear that he's trying to disrupt Wikipedia, then it will surely quickly become apparent, and we can block him then, right? But otherwise, I think it must be innocent until proven guilty. [[User:Matt Crypto]] 07:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I take your point, Matt, but I feel you ought to have discussed this with the blocking admin, rather than undoing the block. I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of [[Vanguard News Network]] or [[Stormfront]], but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response. [[User:SlimVirgin]] 07:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l