A small group of hateful people banned me for no reason. In response, Fred Bauder made this incoherent personal attack:
But just today on [[Talk:Holocaust denial examined]] you made the following edit: ":::HistoryBuffEr, you are clearly makin anti-Semitic and ad homenim attacks towards Jay, and you are pushing a Nazi agenda. Your edits will be reverted. [[User:RK|RK]] 17:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)"
Now, you may be right. I don't follow the edits in this area, but still a personal attack. I would have banned you long ago, but played no role in the arbitration case. May I suggest you take what happened as a lesson and learn from it and when you come back take a lighter attitude and have some fun instead of the constant uproar.
I am shocked by Fred's lies and condoning of anti-Semitic personal attacks. HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly been filling Wikipedia with multiple ad homenim anti-Semitic attacks, all of which use anti-Semitic terminology straight from Jew-Watch, a Nazi website. In response, MANY Wikipedia users have condemned this person for his outrageous behaviour, and it now looks like he may be banned.
Yet out of all the people who have been condemning his anti-Semitic attacks, Fred Bauder picks on me alone, and dishonestly pretends that I am somehow attacking people? Huh?
As far as I can tell, Fred Bauder thinks that it is Ok to come onto Wikipedia, harasss people, revert pages, create flame wars, and use racist hatespeech. And no ban. But when multiple people object to such behaviour, Fred uses this as a reason to ban me? And then says that I should have "fun" with this kind of Jew-baiting?
This is precisely the kind of anti-Jewish rhetoric that I was complaining about last year. No one on this list ever bans people for racist hatespeech, even when they admit to being a Nazi (like Mr. Natural Health), or even when they use Neo-Nazi JewWatch tactics, like HistoryBuffEr. Yet objecting to this gross abuse someone is grounds for a ban?
Is obecting to wife-beating worse than beating one's wife?
It is no wonder that Wikipedia is getting a bad rep, and this latest incident will only convince the world at large that Wikipedia doesn't work, and is controlled by hateful extremists. Fred's outrageous blame-the-Jew-victim mentality is an example of Wikipedia at its utter worst.
Robert (RK)
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
I would like that no flame war starts on this list. Robert is currently very shocked. Just let him voice his opinion once for all, and let us be done with it. Please refrain from blowing on the flame. It is not pleasant for anyone.
-------
Also, I just looked at Robert user page and talk page, and there is no notification of the ban. I am quite surprised of that. Why not ?
Incidently, Robert, since you will not be able to edit your user page and your user talk page, you may wish that they are left in a certain state. I am not entirely sure you were given the time to fix your space. If you wish to change them in any way, I just wanted to tell you I would be willing to do it for you.
While I have no problem with his ban, it is inclined to look ridiculous when compared against the treatment of some of those RK has clashed with, who have been far worse, and that now gives him something to complain about. Consistency should be king.
-- ambi
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:47 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I would like that no flame war starts on this list. Robert is currently very shocked. Just let him voice his opinion once for all, and let us be done with it. Please refrain from blowing on the flame. It is not pleasant for anyone.
Also, I just looked at Robert user page and talk page, and there is no notification of the ban. I am quite surprised of that. Why not ?
Incidently, Robert, since you will not be able to edit your user page and your user talk page, you may wish that they are left in a certain state. I am not entirely sure you were given the time to fix your space. If you wish to change them in any way, I just wanted to tell you I would be willing to do it for you.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:20:09 +1000, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
While I have no problem with his ban, it is inclined to look ridiculous when compared against the treatment of some of those RK has clashed with, who have been far worse, and that now gives him something to complain about. Consistency should be king.
Agreed on both counts. It is frustrating when the outcome of a series of decisions is that people who obviously care about the project, and have contributed greatly to it -- but have a hard time expressing it civilly or manipulating rules -- are treated the same way, or worse, than people who obviously don't care about the project, have only recently arrived or contributed little of note, but are skilful at manipulating rules to their advantage.
I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in both emails below.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Sj wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:20:09 +1000, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
While I have no problem with his ban, it is inclined to look ridiculous when compared against the treatment of some of those RK has clashed with, who have been far worse, and that now gives him something to complain about. Consistency should be king.
Agreed on both counts. It is frustrating when the outcome of a series of decisions is that people who obviously care about the project, and have contributed greatly to it -- but have a hard time expressing it civilly or manipulating rules -- are treated the same way, or worse, than people who obviously don't care about the project, have only recently arrived or contributed little of note, but are skilful at manipulating rules to their advantage.
RK, despite his long record of transgression, getting away with it with seeming impunity, WAS one of our failures to be consistant.
Fred
From: John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:54:23 +0800 To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objecting to hatespeech is grounds for being banned? Huh?!
I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in both emails below.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Sj wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:20:09 +1000, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
While I have no problem with his ban, it is inclined to look ridiculous when compared against the treatment of some of those RK has clashed with, who have been far worse, and that now gives him something to complain about. Consistency should be king.
Agreed on both counts. It is frustrating when the outcome of a series of decisions is that people who obviously care about the project, and have contributed greatly to it -- but have a hard time expressing it civilly or manipulating rules -- are treated the same way, or worse, than people who obviously don't care about the project, have only recently arrived or contributed little of note, but are skilful at manipulating rules to their advantage.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rebecca wrote:
While I have no problem with his ban, it is inclined to look ridiculous when compared against the treatment of some of those RK has clashed with, who have been far worse, and that now gives him something to complain about. Consistency should be king.
I didn't participate in this particular Arbitration decision, so this is just my personal view, but I don't think it was inconsistent or unjustifiable. Any particular action by RK doesn't warrant banning IMO, but this is not one particular action. There is a *lengthy* series of actions, and he's been at the center of numerous disputes over the past year or so. Some are not his fault, and some are. Generally, he appears to go ballistic during most of them, which causes problems. If you look through this mailing list's archives, you'll find quite a few tirades from him, including his belief that Wikipedia ought to be called "Nazipedia" due to its antisemitism (a statement I don't think he ever actually retracted). On the whole, he's accounted for a disproportionate share of problem-resolution time, and I don't think it's entirely due to the people he contends with. It's a tough call because he also has been a good faith contributor, but I think if you look at other decisions, it's consistent. IMO this case is clearer than Wik's case, for example.
-Mark
As I said, I'm not disputing that RK deserved to be banned. Indeed, I think this has been one of the most important ArbCom decisions yet.
What I am suggesting is that he does also have some reason to be incensed, for the reasons that Sj mentioned. There are many other users who have caused as much trouble as RK, but just haven't been around as long. Many of those users also lack the history of positive contributions, and some do not appear to give a damn about the project. Many of these are also, as he says, skilful at manipulating the rules. Yet, once they get to the ArbCom stage, it'll take a couple of months for them to be even put on probation.
-- ambi
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:08:32 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
While I have no problem with his ban, it is inclined to look ridiculous when compared against the treatment of some of those RK has clashed with, who have been far worse, and that now gives him something to complain about. Consistency should be king.
I didn't participate in this particular Arbitration decision, so this is just my personal view, but I don't think it was inconsistent or unjustifiable. Any particular action by RK doesn't warrant banning IMO, but this is not one particular action. There is a *lengthy* series of actions, and he's been at the center of numerous disputes over the past year or so. Some are not his fault, and some are. Generally, he appears to go ballistic during most of them, which causes problems. If you look through this mailing list's archives, you'll find quite a few tirades from him, including his belief that Wikipedia ought to be called "Nazipedia" due to its antisemitism (a statement I don't think he ever actually retracted). On the whole, he's accounted for a disproportionate share of problem-resolution time, and I don't think it's entirely due to the people he contends with. It's a tough call because he also has been a good faith contributor, but I think if you look at other decisions, it's consistent. IMO this case is clearer than Wik's case, for example.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rebecca wrote
Yet, once they get to the ArbCom stage, it'll take a couple of months for them to be even put on probation.
'The law's delay' - W. Shakespeare. The current system is hardly precipitate, so the argument that B, C, D ... are just as bad as A, who has had due process, is not a strong one.
Charles
Delirium wrote:
I didn't participate in this particular Arbitration decision, so this is just my personal view, but I don't think it was inconsistent or unjustifiable. Any particular action by RK doesn't warrant banning IMO, but this is not one particular action. There is a *lengthy* series of actions, and he's been at the center of numerous disputes over the past year or so. Some are not his fault, and some are. Generally, he appears to go ballistic during most of them, which causes problems. If you look through this mailing list's archives, you'll find quite a few tirades from him, including his belief that Wikipedia ought to be called "Nazipedia" due to its antisemitism (a statement I don't think he ever actually retracted). On the whole, he's accounted for a disproportionate share of problem-resolution time, and I don't think it's entirely due to the people he contends with. It's a tough call because he also has been a good faith contributor, but I think if you look at other decisions, it's consistent. IMO this case is clearer than Wik's case, for example.
-Mark
How amusing. I have seen just as many people call Wikipedia a biased in favour of Jews.
TBSDY