I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly
(but only slightly) less obvious.
--Jimbo
Yes. And it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, in my opinion, to view this "slightly less obvious" dimension as a total amensty for that user, as "the same genre," esp. vis-a-vis the distress felt by the victims.
Another unfortunate and un-contextual current of thought claims non-Jews (or non-Jimbos) are or stand the risk of being treated more poorly (unequally). But I maintain that evidence needs to be submitted with specific examples in order to identify and undertake the necessary corrections.
At the event, I am only familliar with two offsite hate and/or hit lists: this one, and the Sollog one. It's crucial, then, to remain more-or-less grounded to what is actually taking place, as opposed to abstract ideals.
El_C
--- El C el.ceeh@gmail.com wrote:
At the event, I am only familliar with two offsite hate and/or hit lists: this one, and the Sollog one. It's crucial, then, to remain more-or-less grounded to what is actually taking place, as opposed to abstract ideals.
Well, keep in mind that certain users in the past have made listed accusations against Wikipedians as being of a certain opinion (to pick a random example), which, from a certain point of view was indeed a kind of "hate list." That was tolerated for a substantial amount of time before people wized up to how ridiculously improper it was to do so.
Certainly Im a bit less big on blowing flame back on personal attacks as I was in those days, but I do remain clear on that particular history and understand the atmosphere of incivility that accusations and harrassment (and yes their flaming) can bring about. So, I undersand the issue of wanting to nip persecution in the bud, but as far as the less rationally-based comments for this topic go, the "pot meet kettle" description still stands firm.
We agree its good to keep the moral highground, but my moral highground *isn't situational --call it "abstract ideals" if you like.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
El C wrote:
At the event, I am only familliar with two offsite hate and/or hit lists: this one, and the Sollog one. It's crucial, then, to remain more-or-less grounded to what is actually taking place, as opposed to abstract ideals.
Why do you distinguish offsite and onsite lists? There have been *numerous* on-Wikipedia lists of users who have been listed due to their various alleged opinions, biases, and misdeeds, as seen from the perspective of the person compiling the list.
From memory, these lists, some shorter and some longer, have included alleged: -- Communists (and communists apologists) -- Zionists -- Anti-Semites -- Terrorist apologists -- Proponents of "alternative medicine" -- Proponents of Creationism -- Members of the Church of Scientology etc.
-Mark
On 8/29/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
From memory, these lists, some shorter and some longer, have included alleged: -- Communists (and communists apologists) -- Zionists -- Anti-Semites -- Terrorist apologists -- Proponents of "alternative medicine" -- Proponents of Creationism -- Members of the Church of Scientology etc.
The difference here is not the content of the list, it's the medium in which it was posted. That Jay is Jewish is not some secret, he wasn't "outed" in the Stormfront post. But posting a list of Jewish Wikipedians on a neo-Nazi list by someone who was called Jews a "disease" which needs to be "eradicated" is comparable to posting the names of doctors performing abortion to lists calling for their assassination. In one case you are talking about informative lists, in the other you are talking about a hit list. I am baffled that anyone who has followed this discussion, either here or on Wikipedia, is still making these sorts of comparisons. If nothing else, please go back and read what Jimbo posted.
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
The difference here is not the content of the list, it's the medium in which it was posted. That Jay is Jewish is not some secret, he wasn't "outed" in the Stormfront post. But posting a list of Jewish Wikipedians on a neo-Nazi list by someone who was called Jews a "disease" which needs to be "eradicated" is comparable to posting the names of doctors performing abortion to lists calling for their assassination. In one case you are talking about informative lists, in the other you are talking about a hit list. I am baffled that anyone who has followed this discussion, either here or on Wikipedia, is still making these sorts of comparisons. If nothing else, please go back and read what Jimbo posted.
It is not entirely analogous, but the situation with Scientologists is not exactly innocuous either---some of the people posting lists "outing" Church of Scientology members are people who are outright hostile towards the CoS, calling it a "dangerous cult" and advocating the arrest of its advocates.
-Mark
As one who's name was once attached to a long list of Wikipedians claimed by certain right-wing extremists (and their apologists) as "anti-Semites," I can only contrast and comment on how this case is being handled versus how that one was. Just to pick a random example. Mark's point, and mine as well (while respecting the monarch's opinion on the matter) is simply that special treatment may be excessive in reacting to a so-called threat--when equivalent things have occurred, and when a determination of personal threat seems to be no more valid than in past cases.
Just as its highly irrational to think that some wannabe-Mossad crank is going to blow up anyone for writing something nice about ("that rabid anti-Semite") Noam Chomsky, its equally irrational to regard Nazi windbags as a direct and imminent threat. Lets keep things in perspective --the group in question are just another bunch of right-wing assholes, who like to get together and shit on stuff. Just like other cranks weve dealt with. Should we pre-ban them all? Overreacting to 1-D dreams-of-swatting-flies-with-a-sledgehammer types is just plain dumb. The language of "eradication" and "disease" is par for the course for any right-wing asshole alliances. There's some "pot and kettle" there Im sure: "four legged beasts" etc. I personally dont read any right-wing nutjob sites because theyre all the same, and they all contain the same thing: assholes expressing a deep and self-centered fondness for themselves.
IAC, disinclusion of anyone must be done with a clear determination that such persons would continue to be reprehensible, have no possibility for positive contribution, and have no future prospect for positive contribution. Thats something thats difficult for me to accept from a mere on-the-fly decision, considering we do have a process (called the Arbcom) which can (if people let it) make a more rational and deliberated decision. The Arbcom has proven to be adequate, fair, and responsive in dealing with problematic personalities, without even much dealing with their extremist affiliations and peculiarities, which are beside the point --the behaviour is the issue, and the behaviour is often plainly evident and can be held to account. If things would have been thus anyway, why the need to overreact? Why do overreactors like yourself take offense to the questions?
SV
--- Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/29/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
From memory, these lists, some shorter and some
longer, have included
alleged: -- Communists (and communists apologists) -- Zionists -- Anti-Semites -- Terrorist apologists -- Proponents of "alternative medicine" -- Proponents of Creationism -- Members of the Church of Scientology etc.
The difference here is not the content of the list, it's the medium in which it was posted. That Jay is Jewish is not some secret, he wasn't "outed" in the Stormfront post. But posting a list of Jewish Wikipedians on a neo-Nazi list by someone who was called Jews a "disease" which needs to be "eradicated" is comparable to posting the names of doctors performing abortion to lists calling for their assassination. In one case you are talking about informative lists, in the other you are talking about a hit list. I am baffled that anyone who has followed this discussion, either here or on Wikipedia, is still making these sorts of comparisons. If nothing else, please go back and read what Jimbo posted.
Ian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
There's some "pot and kettle" there Im sure: "four legged beasts" etc.
Should be "two-legged beasts," IIRC.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I regret my poor choice of terms in my last mail, and the tired state during which I wrote it.
The point was that if we are balanced in our approach we should regard all extremists as equally reprehensible, and that merely being one of a designated reprehensible character (as such designations are too often subjective) should not preclude one from participating in the project. My definition of a "reprehensible view" (substituting for an unreasonable term) is simply anyone which considers anyone else inferior. Ironically, this would seem to include myself, as I am guilty of using (for sake of rhetorical emphasis) the very kind of reprehensible terms which I sought to oppose in principle.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com