Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
I have not looked through all of the disputes this user has had with others, but in the ones that I have looked at he has made no less than 12 personal attacks. Some of them quite vicious ("Hello, RK. Have you always suffered from mental illness and perceptual problems?"). At another time he has made an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?". Anyway, this is all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall this policy be enforced?
As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally RK, but numerous others as well.
Best, Sascha Noyes
On Saturday 17 January 2004 03:07 pm, Sascha Noyes wrote:
As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally RK, but numerous others as well.
"personally attacked RK" that should read
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
Given the current state of things, it seems we have two choices here: 1) Quickly get some working provisional policies for the mediation and arbitration committee in place to deal with this issue 2) Appeal to Jimbo to handle this case, subject to input from everyone (as usual), since our dispute-resolution processes are still not put together
I'd personally prefer #1, so if the mediation committee wants to try to sort out the mess, or at least determine whether it is a mess of the sort-out-able kind, feel free. =]
-Mark
On Saturday 17 January 2004 06:31 pm, Delirium wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
Given the current state of things, it seems we have two choices here:
- Quickly get some working provisional policies for the mediation and
arbitration committee in place to deal with this issue 2) Appeal to Jimbo to handle this case, subject to input from everyone (as usual), since our dispute-resolution processes are still not put together
I'd personally prefer #1, so if the mediation committee wants to try to sort out the mess, or at least determine whether it is a mess of the sort-out-able kind, feel free. =]
My thoughts on this: I'm not hellbent on a ban or anything, but MNH has been reminded time and again of our policy of not making personal attacks. Obviously to no avail.
Also, I'm not quite sure whether the framework of mediation/arbitration is the correct one. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy to the legal system of most "western" countries:
There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain laws of a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the other hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute), then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him and me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is in violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this matter.
Best, Sascha Noyes
--- Sascha Noyes sascha@pantropy.net wrote:
There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain laws of a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the other hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute), then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him and me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is in violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this matter.
I agree. I think we need a Wikipedia Prosecutor's office, where an elected prosecutor would hire deputies and go out and investigate the matter. Then, they would be the ones bringing the accused to the mediation/arbitration. If the accused does not wish to face the arbitration/mediation, he will be considered a fujitive, and all rights and proviledges of a law abiding citizens of the W will be revoked and the user permanently banned, until such time as either the Prosecutor ends the search or the accused submits anew to the arbitration/mediation.
I suggest an interesting punishment for petty offenders: community service on the W. Edit theses 400 articles to match them to this format, and you can come back full-fledged.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Sascha said in part:
Also, I'm not quite sure whether the framework of mediation/arbitration is
the
correct one. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy to the legal system
of
most "western" countries:
There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain
laws of
a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the
other
hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute), then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him
and
me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is
in
violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this
matter.
This analogy does /not/ work for mediation. IMO a better analogy would be of marriage guidance counselling. The idea is not to decide who is wrong, or to make judgements between "complainants" and "problem users" but to help those in disagreement to find mutually satisfactory solutions. If it comes down to a situation where there can't be an agreement then sadly it's time to decide whether divorce is necessary.
This situation is one where Anthere's comments about mediation between personalities rather than mediating only on specific article disputes applies. I'm still thinking about that - I think she is right in that problems are more often about personal differences than really about article text and so on, but am not sure how mediation can effectively help. Especially when we have such limited means - if we could all get together physically (especially with a few pints ;) then maybe we could make a difference in personal conflicts, but with the limited means we have I'm not sure how effective we will be. (that doesn't mean we shouldn't try of course)
Regards,
sannse
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
I've taken a look at these, & while MNH's behavor is not exemplary, I don't see any smoking gun that justifies banning.
Two of the people MNH has exchanged barbs with -- RK & Adam -- haven't been models of restraint themselves, making a few attacks on MNH themselves. His response to Teresa Knox does appear unjustified, though, & I would like better proof that he was the person acting from those IP addresses.
[snip]
(...) At another time he has made an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?".
I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic descriptioin.
all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall this policy be enforced?
As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally [attacked] RK, but numerous others as well.
I've seen a fair number of people called "kooks", "zanies", etc. here on Wikipedia, & I was unaware that was not approved behavior. (After reading Sacha's article, I followed the link to find a forum on Meta from a few months ago about this very matter, which I somehow missed.) If a contributor to Wiki can get banned for certain behavior, then these terms should be made clear somewhere on Wiki, & not merely discussed on Yet Another Meta Page.
Geoff
Geoff
On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
I've taken a look at these, & while MNH's behavor is not exemplary, I don't see any smoking gun that justifies banning.
Two of the people MNH has exchanged barbs with -- RK & Adam -- haven't been models of restraint themselves, making a few attacks on MNH themselves. His response to Teresa Knox does appear unjustified, though, & I would like better proof that he was the person acting from those IP addresses.
[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) states: "No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period." and "Unlike the other rules, which are community conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this one may also be implemented in extreme cases as policy, i.e. grounds for banning that go beyond our traditional "sheer vandalism" threshold."
The question is not whether he argued with users that have not been "models of restraint", but rather whether his personal attacks were sufficiently extreme to warrant a banning. I submit, with documentation of no less than 11 instances, that his behaviour has been sufficiently extreme, and a proper refutation of this should be made for each instance of his use of personal attacks.
[snip]
(...) At another time he has made an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?".
I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic descriptioin.
I agree with you that RK has at times behaved extremely badly on wikipedia, but that is not at issue here. I have stated that I believe that MNH's statement that he is a german Nazi from NY who is extremely proud of his heritage is indeed an implicit threat to RK:
RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he lives close to RK.
It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:
1.Why mention that on his talk page then? 2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people wanted you [RK] banned many months ago"
This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation, and therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.
all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall this policy be enforced?
As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally [attacked] RK, but numerous others as well.
I've seen a fair number of people called "kooks", "zanies", etc. here on Wikipedia, & I was unaware that was not approved behavior. (After reading Sacha's article, I followed the link to find a forum on Meta from a few months ago about this very matter, which I somehow missed.) If a contributor to Wiki can get banned for certain behavior, then these terms should be made clear somewhere on Wiki, & not merely discussed on Yet Another Meta Page.
The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks), which I have quoted above.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
(snip) It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY
RK says on his user page that he lives in New York, so I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Nutty H knew that, and therefore knew what identifying himself as a German Nazi from New York would mean.
--Charles Podles (en:user:Mirv)
Charles Podles wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
(snip) It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY
RK says on his user page that he lives in New York, so I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Nutty H knew that, and therefore knew what identifying himself as a German Nazi from New York would mean.
If you are going to complain about somebody's personal attacks then using personal attacks yourself, like calling him "Mr. Nutty H.", negates the credibility of your accusations.
Ec
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
[snip]
(...) At another time he has made an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?".
I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic description.
I agree with you that RK has at times behaved extremely badly on wikipedia, but that is not at issue here. I have stated that I believe that MNH's statement that he is a german Nazi from NY who is extremely proud of his heritage is indeed an implicit threat to RK:
RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he lives close to RK.
I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone he disagrees with "a Nazi"; another possible meaning would be the "Soup Nazi" from the Seinberg sitcom, who is not clearly anti-semitic, merely despotic in how he runs his restaurant.
IIRC my high school years, I had one or two teachers describe themselves semi-humorously as "a Nazi", meaning they tolerated no dissent.
One other point I shuld have mentioned was that when I looked at for the quote in question, I could not find it. Did someone delete it? If so, was it MNH? And if it was him, did he do it because he regretted his choice of words -- or because he wanted to hide his indiscression?
It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:
1.Why mention that on his talk page then? 2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people wanted you [RK] banned many months ago"
This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation, and therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.
Or it could be that MNH has either been reading the archive of the maillist, or lurking here. If so he, would not be the only one. I find it surprising that about the same time there was a thread here whether or not the September 11 attacks should be labelled "terrorist" or not, Wik arbitrarily decided to remove that word from all of relevant articles.
This matter is far less obvious than you think, Sascha. And I would hope that the principle of Wikilove means that any request for banning requires at least a preponderance of evidence.
Geoff
On Sunday 18 January 2004 01:09 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he lives close to RK.
I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone he disagrees with "a Nazi"; another possible meaning would be the "Soup Nazi" from the Seinberg sitcom, who is not clearly anti-semitic, merely despotic in how he runs his restaurant.
IIRC my high school years, I had one or two teachers describe themselves semi-humorously as "a Nazi", meaning they tolerated no dissent.
Answered below
One other point I shuld have mentioned was that when I looked at for the quote in question, I could not find it. Did someone delete it? If so, was it MNH? And if it was him, did he do it because he regretted his choice of words -- or because he wanted to hide his indiscression?
If wikipedia weren't so slow I'd check again, but I am fairly sure that the comment was deleted by RK because he found it to be hostile. I would have done so as well.
It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:
1.Why mention that on his talk page then? 2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people wanted you [RK] banned many months ago"
This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation, and therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.
Or it could be that MNH has either been reading the archive of the maillist, or lurking here. If so he, would not be the only one. I find it surprising that about the same time there was a thread here whether or not the September 11 attacks should be labelled "terrorist" or not, Wik arbitrarily decided to remove that word from all of relevant articles.
Your criticisms of my interpretation of his statement are all valid. However, what you have failed to dispel (in my mind), is the possibility that it was meant as a threat. Implicit threats function not by being overt threats, but rather by having the property that they can be interpreted as a threat. I concede that one has to also employ a measure of likelihood. Your suggestion that this statement was meant as an attack on RK for calling others Nazis has in my mind lowered the possibility that it was meant as a threat. But I am still of the opinion that it is a possibility.
I don't think that your charge that my interpretation is a logical fallacy is correct. But I concede that this was due to my poor wording of the matter. I did not mean to suggest that his statement is *only* interpretable as a threat. Merely that it is a possible interpretation. In the interpretation that I submit as a possibility, the term "Nazi" is taken in its original meaning. A meaning that is accompanied by the ideological baggage that the only sollution to the "Judenproblem" is the extermination of all Jews.
I know of the common usage of the word Nazi to humerously or combatively refer to someone who displays certain behaviour characteristic of 'proper' Nazis. And I agree with you that MNH could be using it in that sense. However, it is characteristically employed in conjunction with other attributes: eg. "soup-nazi", "feminazi", etc. This was not the case here.
This matter is far less obvious than you think, Sascha. And I would hope that the principle of Wikilove means that any request for banning requires at least a preponderance of evidence.
My case is founded first and foremost on his personal attacks. Whether or not the "Nazi from NY" statement is seen as an implicit threat does not at all affect the validity of my request for a ban. I do regard his "Nazi from NY" as an implicit threat, but as with all implicit threats, it is a matter of interpretation. I don't think that it can be argued, however, that this remark was not hostile and not combative.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote in part:
Geoff Burling wrote:
I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone he disagrees with "a Nazi";
Your criticisms of my interpretation of his statement are all valid. However, what you have failed to dispel (in my mind), is the possibility that it was meant as a threat. Implicit threats function not by being overt threats, but rather by having the property that they can be interpreted as a threat. I concede that one has to also employ a measure of likelihood. Your suggestion that this statement was meant as an attack on RK for calling others Nazis has in my mind lowered the possibility that it was meant as a threat. But I am still of the opinion that it is a possibility.
Sure, it's a possibility. But if you want MNH to be banned on this basis (in part on this basis I mean, since you charge further reasons), then the burden lies with you to convince /us/ (or Jimbo, or the arbitrator) that it really was a threat.
I know that if I saw A say to B «I am a Z.» in the course of a fight, and B has a habit of calling people Zs, then I would assume that B had called A a Z earlier in the course of the fight, and that now A was being sarcastic in a bitter response. I would /not/ assume that A really intended to claim to be a Z. Now, this does not excuse A's outburst, but it puts considerable doubt on any claim that A was /threatening/ B, even though a Z is a threat to B.
I don't know if RK ever called MNH a Nazi before that comment appeared, but I'd at least have to establish that he hadn't done so if I wanted to argue that MNH intended to threaten RK.
So I would drop the threat charge for now and stick to this:
My case is founded first and foremost on his personal attacks.
-- Toby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Geoff Burling wrote: | On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote: | | |>On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote: |> |>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote: |>> |>>>Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has |>>>repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks |>>>on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds |>>>that he is not abating with said attacks. |>>> |>>>I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this |>>>user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox |>> | [snip] | |>>>(...) At another time he has made |>>>an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi |>>>from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?". |>> |>>I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having |>>read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses |>>people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic |>>description. |> |>I agree with you that RK has at times behaved extremely badly on wikipedia, |>but that is not at issue here. I have stated that I believe that MNH's |>statement that he is a german Nazi from NY who is extremely proud of his |>heritage is indeed an implicit threat to RK: |> |>RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies |>firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he |>lives close to RK. | | | I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH | calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can | describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my | last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone | he disagrees with "a Nazi"; another possible meaning would be the "Soup Nazi" | from the Seinberg sitcom, who is not clearly anti-semitic, merely despotic | in how he runs his restaurant.
However, when one thinks of historic Nazis, killing Jews IS one of the first characteristics to come to mind.
I do disagree with RK calling anyone he dislikes a Nazi, but that's a separate issue. If I told (picking random user names here) Angela that I thought she was a terrorist because she protected an article on someone else's version, would that justify Uncle Ed telling me he was a terrorist and was going to kill me?
Nathan aka Pak
Nathan Russell wrote in part:
I do disagree with RK calling anyone he dislikes a Nazi, but that's a separate issue. If I told (picking random user names here) Angela that I thought she was a terrorist because she protected an article on someone else's version, would that justify Uncle Ed telling me he was a terrorist and was going to kill me?
You're analogy goes too far here -- and that's rather the point.
Would it justify Uncle Ed telling you he was a terrorist, *period*? No, it wouldn't -- but Sascha was claiming more than that MNH was unjust. Then, would it be reasonable for us to /conclude/ that Uncle Ed /meant/ (but did *not* literally say!) that he was going to kill you?
IMO, that would not be a reasonable conclusion.
-- Toby
Sascha Noyes wrote:
The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks), which I have quoted above.
Number 9 on a list of 50 items /is/ obscure. If this is going to be used as material for a ban, then I agree that it should be made less obscure!
-- Toby
On Sunday 18 January 2004 05:40 pm, Toby Bartels wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks), which I have quoted above.
Number 9 on a list of 50 items /is/ obscure. If this is going to be used as material for a ban, then I agree that it should be made less obscure!
That is a matter of contention. How would you make it less obscure? Would you have all the policies listed on the "policy page" actually displayed on that page? The page would become very large indeed.
Your obscurity argument would constitute a somewhat valid criticism had it not been the case that MNH was informed by various different wikipedians approximately six times that "no personal attacks, period." was an official wikipedia policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks), which I have quoted above.
Number 9 on a list of 50 items /is/ obscure. If this is going to be used as material for a ban, then I agree that it should be made less obscure!
That is a matter of contention. How would you make it less obscure? Would you have all the policies listed on the "policy page" actually displayed on that page? The page would become very large indeed.
It /is/ a matter of contention? Sorry, I thought that you had said that you wanted this matter clarified before people were banned for it. (But I may have confused this with something that somebody else wrote.)
Mav already gave a good suggestion for making it less obscure, which is to list it on the submission requirements page that he wants linked to from every edit page. Then it would clearly be a requirement for any submission, not merely one of 50 "guidelines to consider".
I trust that you're not arguing that people should be banned for violating any of the 50 items listed as "guidelines to consider". This particular rule is special -- more than just for our consideration. But that is /not/ how it explained now -- it's obscure.
Your obscurity argument would constitute a somewhat valid criticism had it not been the case that MNH was informed by various different wikipedians approximately six times that "no personal attacks, period." was an official wikipedia policy.
Then say that! My obscurity argument was a response to what you wrote above. If you're going to rely on something else, then my response doesn't apply. But I stand by my response to *what*you*wrote*above* (with ">>>"). That placement /is/ obscure!
-- Toby
On Sunday 18 January 2004 09:44 pm, Toby Bartels wrote:
It /is/ a matter of contention? Sorry, I thought that you had said that you wanted this matter clarified before people were banned for it. (But I may have confused this with something that somebody else wrote.)
My apologies for not reading [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] carefully. I missed the part under the heading stating: "In addition to the generally accepted policies listed above, the following guidelines have been suggested by various participants:" under which the "no personal attacks is placed. I propose moving it up to the section of generally accepted policies. How does a policy become generally accepted?
Because the policy of not making personal attacks is listed as a "suggested policy" on [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]], I have edited [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] to reflect that fact. The matter that I had said I wanted clarified is the exact procedure for getting someone to act according to the guidelines. Now that you have made me (all of us?) aware of the fact that it is not actually a generally accepted policy, that will also have to be resolved.
Mav already gave a good suggestion for making it less obscure, which is to list it on the submission requirements page that he wants linked to from every edit page. Then it would clearly be a requirement for any submission, not merely one of 50 "guidelines to consider".
I agree that this is the correct way to bring the policies to the attention of wikipedians.
Best, Sascha Noyes
On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
I've taken a look at these, & while MNH's behavor is not exemplary, I don't see any smoking gun that justifies banning.
Two of the people MNH has exchanged barbs with -- RK & Adam -- haven't been models of restraint themselves, making a few attacks on MNH themselves. His response to Teresa Knox does appear unjustified, though, & I would like better proof that he was the person acting from those IP addresses.
I would like it as well. It is obvious to me personally that the person from those IP addresses is indeed MNH, as he seemlessly edits those articles ([[Alternative medicine]]) with MNH, and is only interrested in those pages. Also, 12.77.5.190 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=...) gave in his _very first_ edit summary: "Hello, RK. Have you always suffered from mental illness and perceptual problems?" This could hardly be a new contributor.
Of course the easiest way to get proof would be for a devel to check MNH's IP when editing around that time. I'm not sure what wikipedia's privacy policy is in regards to revealing IP addresses of contributors.
Best, Sascha Noyes
He also likes to list EVERY person with whom he has edit disagreements on [[Conflicts between users]].
RickK
Sascha Noyes sascha@pantropy.net wrote: Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
I have not looked through all of the disputes this user has had with others, but in the ones that I have looked at he has made no less than 12 personal attacks. Some of them quite vicious ("Hello, RK. Have you always suffered from mental illness and perceptual problems?"). At another time he has made an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?". Anyway, this is all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall this policy be enforced?
As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally RK, but numerous others as well.
Best, Sascha Noyes
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rick wrote:
| He also likes to list EVERY person with whom he has edit | disagreements on [[Conflicts between users]]. | | RickK | | */Sascha Noyes sascha@pantropy.net/* wrote: | | Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health | has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal | attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user | on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks. | | I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by | this user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox | | I have not looked through all of the disputes this user has had | with others, but in the ones that I have looked at he has made no | less than 12 personal attacks. Some of them quite vicious ("Hello, | RK. Have you always suffered from mental illness and perceptual | problems?"). At another time he has made an implicit threat to RK | on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from New York. I am | proud of my German heritage, how about you?". Anyway, this is all | documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip | service to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit | threats), or shall this policy be enforced? | | As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally | RK, but numerous others as well. | | Best, Sascha Noyes
Michael, in particular, seems to make death threats a LOT, and I don't believe any action outside WP has been taken in regard to this.
Anyone who has spent a half-hour banning Michael clones (which is most of the active admins) knows that death threats start showing up in edit summaries within 5 minutes.
Nathan aka pakaran