On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:

I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a block.

Agreed that it justifies a block, but an indefinite block? For his second block EVER?

Ryan

hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted the citations an put the references in their place

and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is not a good source other than that it was "propoganda", which is subjective.. The talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as 'propoganda'.

And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something another time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not indefinate.

I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance.

Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one of the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look.

thanks saladin1970

From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:08:41 +0200

I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a block. Edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53... clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a website with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference turned into a disputed tag.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53... you also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com

Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and in response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove sources to get it in.

Your contributions show the following edits: 10:41, 18 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (rv to previous page. the references provide all the information given) 10:06, 18 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53835919) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (rv to previous page - the three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good reason it stays) 06:41, 18 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53819450) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (added three oaths section,) 19:26, 17 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diffhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (removed pov further reading and added a factual reference)

That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the same username, your IP has nothing to do with that. Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

Hi, my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself

banned.

...

i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons

1. 3RR rule
2. No useful edits
3. Copyright violoations
4. attacks on talk pages

They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons, they really have no substance.

1. I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address and

editor the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at work.

2. I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the

spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section, background info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and zionism page, and turkic.

3. There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced to

a

...

website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their copyright. So there was NO copy right violation

4. there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could be

said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.

Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at best are minor violations that would carry warnings.

however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to

block

...

rule".

my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses .

Including

...

the person that banned me jayjg. These posts included a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind orthodox jews who oppose political zionism. This was reverted many

times

...

by jayjg amongst others

also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the enemy

of

...

the jews by alan hart", who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well researched 'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.

Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason for

my

...

ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user

who

...

has a different view of zionism.

for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted

by

...

me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned indefinately thanks saladin

---

Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN

Messenger

...

7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

You did delete citations, I linked the edits in which you did. And I also linked the edit in which you replaced a perfectly fine source with your link. The 3RR violation is because you keep adding the same link when several people have asked you not to. In such cases, you should engage in discussion, not revert back.

I've asked Jaiyg to comment on the copyvio thing.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted the citations an put the references in their place

and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is not a good source other than that it was "propoganda", which is subjective.. The talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as 'propoganda'.

And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something another time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not indefinate.

I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance.

Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one of the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look.

thanks saladin1970

...

From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:08:41 +0200

I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a

block.

...

Edits like

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a website with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference turned into a disputed tag.

In

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

you also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com

Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and in response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove

sources

...

to get it in.

Your contributions show the following edits: 10:41, 18 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (rv to previous page. the references provide all the information given) 10:06, 18 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (rv to previous page - the three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good

reason

...

it stays) 06:41, 18 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (added three oaths

section,)

...

19:26, 17 May 2006 (histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history) (diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (removed pov further

reading

...

and added a factual reference)

That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the same username, your IP has nothing to do with that. Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

Hi, my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself

banned.

...

i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons

1. 3RR rule
2. No useful edits
3. Copyright violoations
4. attacks on talk pages

They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons, they really have no substance.

1. I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address

and

...

...

editor the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at work.

2. I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the

spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section,

background

...

...

info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and

zionism

...

...

page, and turkic.

3. There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced

to

...

a

...

website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their copyright. So there was NO copy right violation

4. there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could

be

...

...

said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.

Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at

best

...

...

are minor violations that would carry warnings.

however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to

block

...

rule".

my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses .

Including

...

the person that banned me jayjg. These posts included a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind orthodox jews who oppose political zionism. This was reverted many

times

...

by jayjg amongst others

also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the

enemy

...

of

...

the jews by alan hart", who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well

researched

...

...

'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.

Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason

for

...

my

...

ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user

who

...

has a different view of zionism.

for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted

by

...

me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned indefinately thanks saladin

---

Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN

Messenger

...

7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

ok, i have looked at the links properly. If you could read the whole post before reply , it would be gratefully appreciated

yes, in my reversion to the previous page , a citation was removed . Given the notes stated it was just a reversion from the one before mine, i was unaware that extra information had been added. One has to ask the question, what about my citation that was delted.

To the second point about the applicability of using the website "z-ionism the real enemy of the jews". I am a little confused. A forum member says it is anti - zionism. I say that it is a historical and factual account of the run up to the creation of israel , not the historical and factual account of the movement of anti - zionism (whatever that is). Another user then says it is a POV. Yet this was a book written by the itv middle east corrospondence of ten years, who spent 5 years documenting and researching this book using factual, referencable material. Someone who had a working relationship with the presidents and gola meir Now if someone says it is pov and i say it is a factual account, how comes my assertion gets used as evidence of banning me indefinately. Shouldn't the question be why is this reference to this book being continuously deleted

Anyhow, the above is really only relevant, in that it highlioghts the subjectiveness of this case.

the real crux of the matter is that i have been banned indefinately (in my first ban -as the ban by thomas harrison was for the same 3rr).

Jaygy has said i broke copy right rules - yet after 10 hours or so he still hasn't produced any evidence of this. It would be extremely unfair for me to have been banned for something a moderator made up . One would have thought that if this was one of the reasons he would have the evidence at hand.

Jaygy also said i did not post any useful posts - this is highly subjective and one has to wonder about the fairness of being banned because of an administrators subjective view my posts were 'useless'.

Jaygy also said i conducted 'attacks' in the talk pages. My statement that some one is a zionist can hardly be in the hall of fame of attacks, especially to merit banning indefinately

Unless Jaygy has been able to produce this evidence of my copy right violations or show you evidence of my profound attacks on others, then it would be extremely unfair and against wikipedia policies to ban me indefinatly.

Thanks once again for taking the time to read my points, your sincerely Saladin

From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:33:36 +0200

You did delete citations, I linked the edits in which you did. And I also linked the edit in which you replaced a perfectly fine source with your link. The 3RR violation is because you keep adding the same link when several people have asked you not to. In such cases, you should engage in discussion, not revert back.

I've asked Jaiyg to comment on the copyvio thing.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted the citations an put the references in their place

and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is

not

...

a good source other than that it was "propoganda", which is subjective.. The talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as 'propoganda'.

And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something another time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not indefinate.

I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance.

Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one

of

...

the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look.

thanks saladin1970

...

From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:08:41 +0200

I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a

block.

...

Edits like

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

...

clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a

website

...

...

with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference turned into a disputed tag.

In

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

...

you also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com

Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and

in

...

...

response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove

sources

...

to get it in.

Your contributions show the following edits: 10:41, 18 May 2006

(histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history)

...

(diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (rv to previous page.

the

...

...

references provide all the information given) 10:06, 18 May 2006

(histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history)

...

(diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (rv to previous page -

the

...

...

three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good

reason

...

it stays) 06:41, 18 May 2006

(histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history)

...

(diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (added three oaths

section,)

...

19:26, 17 May 2006

(histhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history)

...

(diff<

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53...

...

...

) Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism (removed pov further

reading

...

and added a factual reference)

That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the same username, your IP has nothing to do with that. Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

Hi, my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself

banned.

...

i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons

1. 3RR rule
2. No useful edits
3. Copyright violoations
4. attacks on talk pages

They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the

reasons,

...

...

...

they really have no substance.

1. I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address

and

...

...

editor the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue

at

...

...

...

work.

2. I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in

the

...

...

...

spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section,

background

...

...

info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and

zionism

...

...

page, and turkic.

3. There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was

referenced

...

to

...

a

...

website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of

their

...

...

...

copyright. So there was NO copy right violation

4. there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that

could

...

be

...

...

said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.

Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at

best

...

...

are minor violations that would carry warnings.

however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to

block

...

rule".

my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses .

Including

...

the person that banned me jayjg. These posts included a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason

behind

...

...

...

orthodox jews who oppose political zionism. This was reverted many

times

...

by jayjg amongst others

also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the

enemy

...

of

...

the jews by alan hart", who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well

researched

...

...

'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.

Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason

for

...

my

...

ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a

user

...

...

who

...

has a different view of zionism.

for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material

posted

...

...

by

...

me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned indefinately thanks saladin

---

Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN

Messenger

...

7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN

Messenger

...

7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview

hi ryan, why am i being blocked for a week? on what grounds? there has to be grounds. Otherwise it is entirely unfair. and why do i have to have the threat of the community banning me permanently over my head. Again there has to be grounds for this. I can't see any.

I have only been a wikipedia member for 3 days, and i have been banned permanently, recommended to be banned for a week pending community judgement, and yet there is no evidence that i violated any rules to call for such justification. There has to be fairness in wikipedia, otherwise it doesn't work

From: "Ryan Delaney" ryan.delaney@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:30:59 -0400

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:

...

Perhaps a little too long, yes. I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed

saladin

...

...

made.

Mgm

Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't simple vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community banned.

Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week. He can get community approval for a ban in that time.

Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

Saladin1970 added a whole bunch of text to the Alan Hart article which was copied directly from a website about his book: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&ol...]

He then reverted it in twice. I consider that copyvio and advertising.

He has also insisted on labelling Harold Shipman, "the most prolific known serial killer in the history of Britain (and possibly the world)" as a "Jew", insisting he be described as a "Jewish British general practitioner" in the introduction [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=52931256&a...] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53056969&a...] , and reverted it in 7 more times.

His talk comments contain personal attacks on various editors, insisting that they, among other things "stop pushing their Zionist agenda" and stop "vandalising", and stating "never mind, this is to be expected from zionists". He offers to edit-war on behalf of other editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amibidhrohi&diff=pre...] and edit wars himself, violating 3RR on more than one occasion. Oh wait, I forgot, after three reverts he actually stopped editing, and "someone else" from his work just happened to spontaneously revert as an IP editor on his behalf. And when someone was also reverting from Saladin1970's home IP, that must have been when that "someone else" was visiting him at home.

Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV, usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written, generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios. Moreover, they have been reverted by 9 different editors. He has managed all of this in under 50 edits. I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project.

Jay.

On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:

Perhaps a little too long, yes. I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin made.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:

...

I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a

block.

Agreed that it justifies a block, but an indefinite block? For his second block EVER?

Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week. He can get community approval for a ban in that time.

Ryan, please don't undo other admins' blocks. Discuss it with the blocking admin and ask him or her to reconsider. See the blocking policy.

Sarah

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week. He can get community approval for a ban in that time.

Ryan, please don't undo other admins' blocks.

You know if we had had this attitude about a year back I would probably have had the you have new messages thing perminatly stuck at the top of my screen.

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

So why is his indefinite block being reversed.

Because he's a newbie and no one bothered to give him short blocks. This isn't simple vandalism and he's not willy on wheels. Someone misunderstanding our policies doesn't give anyone precedent to railroad him rather than giving him a chance. We tell people to be bold, and then indefinite block them for doing it?

Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?

No, I'm not prepared to mentor everyone I unblock.

Ryan

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?

No, I'm not prepared to mentor everyone I unblock.

Then kindly stay out of it. Cleaning up after this very poor editor is going to involve a lot of work, and if you're not prepared to do that work yourself, don't expect anyone else to.

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

Then kindly stay out of it. Cleaning up after this very poor editor is going to involve a lot of work, and if you're not prepared to do that work yourself, don't expect anyone else to.

Listen, we don't have to bite each other's heads off over this. I shortened his block to 1 week so that people could talk about this and figure out whether there is actually consensus for a community ban. If an indefinite block is uncontroversial with most admins who are not me (disappointing as that may be), I'll re-apply it myself. So let's talk about it, not get territorial about our fiefdoms.

Ryan

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

Listen, we don't have to bite each other's heads off over this. I shortened his block to 1 week so that people could talk about this and figure out whether there is actually consensus for a community ban.

Ryan, we could have talked about it just the same without you undoing Jay's block.

I did seriously mean it about the mentoring thing. If you think this editor should be allowed to edit, with all the trouble that will entail, you should be willing to volunteer to monitor his edits and help to correct them.

Sarah

jayjg wrote: <snip>

I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project.

Entertainment value?

On 5/20/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

So here is my defense. at the moment i am on trial for one week . ref 1threeoaths http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm ref 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey ref 3 http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17jeru.html

The first source is the "dodgy website" I referred to earlier. It's an extreme partisan website. It should not be used as a source.

The second is Wikipedia. It's not allowed to be used as a source in our articles, for obvious reasons.

The third is a personal website http://www.fsmitha.com/about.html -- also not allowed.

The use of poor sources should be placed in the context of you trying to add six times to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]], the British doctor who murdered his patients, that he was Jewish or that his mother was a Jewish asylum seeker, without a source, although even with one, why is that fact so relevant to his notability that it has to go in the intro?

Plus the reverting with a sockpuppet, or, if you prefer, a workmate with the same IP and same browser, who reverts to the same version of the same page just in time to stop you from violating 3RR.

Sarah

On May 20, 2006, at 1:23 AM, abu hamza wrote:

The last point, why is a persons religious and ethnic background not relevant to a wiki site on a person. Any references or sources , however slim have claimed he was jewish. One should be asking why certain people were vehmently opposed to listing his religious and ethnic background

This man is a notorious murderer. To claim that he was Jewish when he is not, or when there is no proof that he is, constitutes anti-Semitism.

Wikipedia will never be used to further a bigoted, racist agenda. I am willing to do anything it takes to prevent it. Be glad you were blocked for a week. I would have blocked indefinitely.

On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote:

Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?

Justinc

On May 19, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:

...

Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV, usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written, generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios. Moreover, they have been reverted by 9 different editors. He has managed all of this in under 50 edits. I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project.

He's a newbie. He doesn't understand our rules or procedures or have any sense of institutional memory like those of us who have been around for a long time. Revert him, zap him with the cluebat a few times, and give him a chance to reform. This is a wiki and the article histories are preserved indefinitely. If short blocks have no effect on him, then I'd be willing to consent to a community ban. But we have to try them first.

All of his edits seem to fall within a POV-pushing, anti-Semitic agenda. From denouncing Zionism to trying to publicly identify (without proof) a convicted murderer as Jewish, it's pretty clear that he's trying to turn Wikipedia content into racist propaganda. I am quite firm about this--he should be blocked indefinitely. If he is willing to apologize for his past edits I'd have no problem with reinstating him. But Wikipedia is not a hate site.

On May 19, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

...

I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project.

Entertainment value?

I don't find anti-Semitism entertaining, thanks.

being anti zionism isnt being anti semetic. likewise some of the most antisemetic people are christian zionists.

you are slandering me to muddy the water, please refrain from personal attacks. I am not anti semetic and could never be

p.s mycontributions included chinese muslims, turkic people and a moors section in the spanish inquisition

From: Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970/Abu Hamza Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 05:47:59 -0700

On May 19, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:

...

...

Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV, usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written, generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios. Moreover, they have been reverted by 9 different editors. He has managed all of this in under 50 edits. I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project.

He's a newbie. He doesn't understand our rules or procedures or have any sense of institutional memory like those of us who have been around for a long time. Revert him, zap him with the cluebat a few times, and give him a chance to reform. This is a wiki and the article histories are preserved indefinitely. If short blocks have no effect on him, then I'd be willing to consent to a community ban. But we have to try them first.

All of his edits seem to fall within a POV-pushing, anti-Semitic agenda. From denouncing Zionism to trying to publicly identify (without proof) a convicted murderer as Jewish, it's pretty clear that he's trying to turn Wikipedia content into racist propaganda. I am quite firm about this--he should be blocked indefinitely. If he is willing to apologize for his past edits I'd have no problem with reinstating him. But Wikipedia is not a hate site.

On May 19, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

...

...

I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project.

Entertainment value?

I don't find anti-Semitism entertaining, thanks.

-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

good point steve

From: "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 15:01:34 +0200

On 5/20/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

the evidence for shipman eing jewish is greater than the evidence for

him

...

not being jewish.

I haven't been following this conversation much, but in general if the statement you make is true, then it's appropriate in an article to make a similar statement: "Doubts over X's ethnic origins remain, but certain writers (A, B) offer evidence to suggest that he was Jewish"...

Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

On 5/20/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:

If it was reliably established that he was Jewish, there would be no problem. Since it isn't reliably established, reporting that he was Jewish, or that he might be Jewish, constitutes anti-Semitism.

The only reference I've found to Harold Shipman being Jewish is a BBC news site reporting a comment by [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], an Islamist cleric in the UK, who was convicted in February of racial hatred and incitement to murder. Abu Hamza told the court that the British Foreign Office and media are controlled by Jews, and part of his evidence was that, referring to Harold Shipman, "If a doctor kills 250 of his patients there is not a single word about his religion." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4644030.stm

This is the attitude that User:Saladin1970 (posting here as Abu Hamza) brings to Wikipedia. We see it a lot. A few weeks ago, another user, User:Jamaissur, created a number of articles about British Jews who were caught up in a financial scandal. There were other people caught up in it too, but he didn't create articles about them, only the Jewish ones, and some of the articles ended up consisting only of the allegations with practically no other information. When he couldn't find a source saying they were Jews, he'd add things like "is one of the 'British friends' of the "Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress," which made the same point. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Townsley&oldid=44187414 Or that the person was married to someone whose father was Jewish. He even created an article about the charity [[Jewish care]] because one of the men caught up in the scandal was a major fundraiser, and for a while that's all the page said: British charity, looks after Jewish people, controversial Lord X was a major fundraiser. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Care&oldid=44486804

Even if Harold Shipman was Jewish and there's a good source for it, there's no reason it should be in the intro. His ethnicity/religion wasn't in any way relevant to his notabilty.

Sarah

Also out of interest, what is the reason behind your interest? Hope it is nothing ulterior.

On 5/20/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

Even if Harold Shipman was Jewish and there's a good source for it, there's no reason it should be in the intro. His ethnicity/religion wasn't in any way relevant to his notabilty.

I'm probably straying into dangerous territory here, but I do notice that ethnic origin is very frequently cited in the intro for people with, shall we say, more positive contributions to humanity. "Jim Smith was a Jewish scientist of Polish origin best known for his studies of geraniums" seems like something you would come across fairly often.

There's really no policy or guideline at all for what shouldn't go in the lead section. There are vague guidelines for what *should* go in it, but whether or not to mention a religion or ethnic origin is largely a question of taste and common sense.

Steve

On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/20/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

Even if Harold Shipman was Jewish and there's a good source for it, there's no reason it should be in the intro. His ethnicity/religion wasn't in any way relevant to his notabilty.

I'm probably straying into dangerous territory here, but I do notice that ethnic origin is very frequently cited in the intro for people with, shall we say, more positive contributions to humanity. "Jim Smith was a Jewish scientist of Polish origin best known for his studies of geraniums" seems like something you would come across fairly often.

I agree that it's a matter of editorial common sense. If the ethnicity is relevant to the person's notability, it's fine to mention it in the intro. If it's harmless, ditto. But if it's irrelevant and arguably racist, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic, then it's important not to mention it with unseemly haste. We shouldn't have articles starting with: "John Doe is a British Muslim convicted of child rape," or "Jane Doe is an Afro-American who murdered all four of her husbands." There's no harm in mentioning ethnic background in the bio section, but it shouldn't be used as a stick to beat people with (or to beat their ethnicity with).

Sarah

On May 20, 2006, at 6:26 AM, abu hamza wrote:

Abu means father of , and my son is called hamza

Convenient excuses, anyhow. You use the same name as an avowed anti- Semite and al-Qaeda sympathizer, and then pretend it was a coincidence?

On 5/20/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

I agree that it's a matter of editorial common sense. If the ethnicity is relevant to the person's notability, it's fine to mention it in the intro. If it's harmless, ditto. But if it's irrelevant and arguably racist, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic, then it's important not to mention it with unseemly haste. We shouldn't have articles starting with: "John Doe is a British Muslim convicted of child rape," or "Jane Doe is an Afro-American who murdered all four of her husbands." There's no harm in mentioning ethnic background in the bio section, but it shouldn't be used as a stick to beat people with (or to beat their ethnicity with).

"John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960) is an American serial killer. Together with his younger partner Lee Boyd Malvo, he carried out the Beltway sniper attacks in an apparent attempt to extort $10 million dollars during his shooting spree."

Not "John Allen Muhammed is a Muslim African-American serial killer".

"Lee Boyd Malvo (alias John Lee Malvo or Malik Malvo) (born February 18, 1985), along with John Allen Muhammad, was arrested on October 24, 2002 in connection with the Beltway sniper attacks. A jury convicted Malvo of capital murder on December 18, 2003, and recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on December 23, 2003,"

Race again not mentioned

On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:

What if they are famous rather than infamous? Is it ok to give the ethnicity a bit of a "boost"? One such issue I recall seeing was on [[Freddie Mercury]] - how important are his Indian or Persian origins?

I don't mind if the rules are different for "positive" vs "negative" articles - it's a bit of a violation of NPOV, but not a major one.

I personally don't mind if it's a positive association, or a very interesting one, though again you have to be careful. Pointing out that someone is a British Muslim mathematician sounds a bit odd. And we wouldn't say a person was a Celtic scientist, so why a Jewish one?

I prefer to add it only when it's relevant to their bio. For example, saying that Freud was a Jewish psychoanalyst would be okay because his background in Judaism played a large part in the development of his ideas (though the current intro doesn't mention it).

Sarah

On 5/20/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

I personally don't mind if it's a positive association, or a very interesting one, though again you have to be careful. Pointing out that someone is a British Muslim mathematician sounds a bit odd. And we wouldn't say a person was a Celtic scientist, so why a Jewish one?

You may be confused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_mathematicians then.

Steve

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 5/20/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

the evidence for shipman eing jewish is greater than the evidence for him not being jewish.

I haven't been following this conversation much, but in general if the statement you make is true, then it's appropriate in an article to make a similar statement: "Doubts over X's ethnic origins remain, but certain writers (A, B) offer evidence to suggest that he was Jewish"...

... unless it's a minority POV.

On May 20, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Prasad J wrote:

Quote from Philip's last message:

"So he publicly identifies with a notorious Islamist and anti-Semite.

...

3,000 people in my country were murdered five years ago in the name of those attitudes. He should be banned indefinitely just as we would ban a neo-Nazi who made similar anti-Semitic edits. These people do not belong in our community."

1)"Notorious Islamist"-are you implying that Islamists (as in Muslims)are notorious?

"Islamist" does not mean "Muslim". Wikipedia states: "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism."

Abu Hamza is an adherent to those political ideologies, notorious for anti-Semitism, sympathies with al-Qaeda, etc.

2. 3000 people died on 9/11. Sorry about that. But scores of my

countrymen in Kashmir are murdered on a daily basis by fundamentalists in that state. Do you see me condemning Abu because of that? He can symathise with whoever he wants- he has a right to do that, provided he does not vandalise Wikipedia.

He's using Wikipedia to promote his bias--trying to turn Wikipedia into propaganda for his cause. The cause of demolishing skyscrapers in Manhattan, slaughtering Indians in Kashmir, and trying to drive the entire nation of Israel into the sea.

I'm glad you can tolerate that, because I can't.

3. "People like

you aren't welcome in civil society, and you know it, so you try to hide behind excuses and rationalizations and straw men. It's not going to work." It is not upto you Philip, to unilaterally pass judgement on who belongs in civil society.

I suggest you calm down and be more civil toward Abu. Treating him with disdain based on his religion or his beliefs (though these might not be acceptable to you) will only make you seem like a bigoted Islamophobe-which I am sure you are not.

There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic ideology is no different.

If someone came on here and used "David Duke" as his nom de plume, and made a bunch of anti-Semitic edits, he would be banned for life very quickly. We hesitate here because the racist ideology in question claims to follow the Islamic religion? Please.

There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic ideology is no different.

As always, Wikipedia is not concerned with the political views of its contributors.

On May 20, 2006, at 8:02 AM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:

...

There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic ideology is no different.

As always, Wikipedia is not concerned with the political views of its contributors.

As always, Wikipedia is concerned with contributors editing Wikipedia to further a political agenda.

...

...

There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic ideology is no different.

As always, Wikipedia is not concerned with the political views of its contributors.

As always, Wikipedia is concerned with contributors editing Wikipedia to further a political agenda.

No.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Prasad J stated for the record:

Quote from Philip's last message:

"So he publicly identifies with a notorious Islamist and anti-Semite.

...

3,000 people in my country were murdered five years ago in the name of those attitudes. He should be banned indefinitely just as we would ban a neo-Nazi who made similar anti-Semitic edits. These people do not belong in our community."

1)"Notorious Islamist"-are you implying that Islamists (as in Muslims)are notorious?

If all Islamists (which is not the same as Muslim) were notorious, there wouldn't be any point in adding that word, would there? Abu Hamza is a notorious Islamist, in contrast to all the merely vile Islamists.

But you knew that.

2. 3000 people died on 9/11. Sorry about that. But scores of my

countrymen in Kashmir are murdered on a daily basis by fundamentalists in that state. Do you see me condemning Abu because of that? He can symathise with whoever he wants- he has a right to do that, provided he does not vandalise Wikipedia.

He does not have the right to use an offensive user name on Wikipedia, regardless of where he claim it is his real name or not.

But you knew that.

3. "People like

you aren't welcome in civil society, and you know it, so you try to hide behind excuses and rationalizations and straw men. It's not going to work." It is not upto you Philip, to unilaterally pass judgement on who belongs in civil society.

I suggest you calm down and be more civil toward Abu. Treating him with disdain based on his religion or his beliefs (though these might not be acceptable to you) will only make you seem like a bigoted Islamophobe-which I am sure you are not.

I suggest you quit telling administrators who know policy far better than you how to enforce policy. Your strawman attacks, claiming bigotry where none exists, will not get you what you want.

Except that what trolls want is attention, so perhaps I'm wrong.

- -- Sean Barrett | A thunder of jets in an open sky, sean@epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!" | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb, | And once again you know it's time....

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Prasad J

I was not trolling. I do not support Islamic fundamentalism. Neither do I support electrocuting hooded Iraqi POWs (in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention) and later taking photographs with the corpses to send home as postcards.

Hang on. It looks to me like that statement above is trolling. If you look at [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]], then you will see that the most we claim is "Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture."

You seem to be implying that this poor chap was actually electrocuted to death when there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting it.

Pete, who doesn't support such abstractions either

In message D9BCB5E9-F76A-401E-830B-3EDB22236C87@philwelch.net, Philip Welch wikipedia-RE/bwZxTIQaLZ21kGMrzwg@public.gmane.org writes

On May 20, 2006, at 2:13 AM, abu hamza wrote:

...

hi Philip, like i said, the few references we have on shipmans background claim him to be jewish

Those references are *not reliable*. It's unacceptable to put unreliable information in the wiki, period.

If it was reliably established that he was Jewish, there would be no problem. Since it isn't reliably established, reporting that he was Jewish, or that he might be Jewish, constitutes anti-Semitism.

Why are you so hell-bent on making this poorly-supported case that he is Jewish, anyway?

Indeed, I live in the same TV broadcast area as Hyde, where Shipman committed his murders, so it was BIG news locally - and as far as I can recall Shipman's religious affiliation if any was NEVER mentioned in the exhaustive reporting of his crimes, the trial, and the public enquiry. It simply was completely irrelevant to the commission of his crimes and anyone seeking to introduce this religious/ethnic characterisation into his article should be required to prove relevance as well as incontrovertible prove the truth of the assertion with high-quality references.

just for the record, and for all of those who have suggested it is wrong to use a controversial name. My name is abu hamza.. However it is not my wiki name, it is the name on the email. Several people have drawn attention to the fact that i am called abu hamza as a mechanism to accuse me of supporting 911, being anti semetic, of flying to the moon and wearing green pants, or whatever other obscure accusation that can be made at me.

i am quite shocked at the lack of redress when certain people are allowed to fling false statements around . such as welch calling me anti semetic. Shame on you. of jaygy and then slimline saying i have written copyright infringments - yet are unable to produce any evidence.

so for now , i will await my 10 day. Any questions can be directed to my email at abuhamza1970@hotmail.com

salaam

From: Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 911 Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:05:56 -0700

On May 20, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Prasad J wrote:

...

I was not trolling. I do not support Islamic fundamentalism. Neither do I support electrocuting hooded Iraqi POWs (in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention) and later taking photographs with the corpses to send home as postcards.

Yes, which is why I don't post here as "Lynndie England". But I always enjoy your anti-American trolling.

-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

On 5/20/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

just for the record, and for all of those who have suggested it is wrong to use a controversial name. My name is abu hamza..

That's as believable as your claims that your friends at work and home simply reverted for you as IPs. It wasn't you at all, it was all your "friends".

However it is not my wiki name, it is the name on the email.

Right. Your wiki name is Saladin1970, Saladin being the Muslim conquerer who drove the Crusaders out of Palestine. I suppose that's your real name too, and there's no political implication there?

of jaygy and then slimline saying i have written copyright infringments - yet are unable to produce any evidence.

Nonsense; your copyright infringements on Alan Hart (where you repeatedly inserted large amounts of text copied verbatim from http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com/ ) have already been shown.

Even a modicum of verisimilitude on your part would be quite helpful; so far your posts have failed dismally in this respect.

Jay.

On May 20, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Prasad J wrote:

There is really no point in trying to converse with people who term any viewpoint which is against theirs as "trolling".

I don't even disagree with you about Abu Ghraib. I just think it's completely off-topic to bring it up. It *is* trolling.

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Prasad J

There is really no point in trying to converse with people who term any viewpoint which is against theirs as "trolling".

I can think of at least one admin who could be described in such a fashion. If he doesn't like even the most innocuous change, it's vandalism and quickly reverted.

Pete, not mentioning names

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 5/20/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:

...

"John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960) is an American serial killer. Together with his younger partner Lee Boyd Malvo, he carried out the Beltway sniper attacks in an apparent attempt to extort $10 million dollars during his shooting spree."

Out of curiosity, why do you think nationality ("American") is relevant, but not race, place of birth etc? Can we formalise some guidelines? When is race relevant? Presumably if someone is the victim of a race hate crime...but when else? I don't think in an encyclopaedia we can ever refrain from mentioning something like that, but we can take "not relevant" to mean "not in the lead".

In this case it is probably harmless. It localizes events in the killer's own country. It would be a little trickier if the killer were not American.

The fact that he adopted the name Muhammad (a typically islamic name) could be problematical.

Ec

On May 20, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

I just look through [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] and find no mention of a connection with the 9/11 incident.

"Hamza has publicly expressed support for al-Qaeda [and] Osama bin Laden."

Again, I'm not claiming he was connected to 9/11, only that he supports that kind of violence. Consider:

"John Doe has publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge [and] Pol Pot."

If anyone came on this listserv publicly identifying with such a John Doe, I'd want to run him out for the same reason.

You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be? Just like some Muslims support Hamza, there are Americans (I have met these people on the internet) who condone what England did to POWs in Abu Ghraib.

Let's respect everyone's privacy please. I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum. Thanks Humus sapiens

On 5/20/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote:

Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?

Justinc

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Humus Sapiens wrote: [fixed top posting]

On 5/20/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

...

On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote:

Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?

Let's respect everyone's privacy please. I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum.

It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman or not, wouldn't you?

On May 20, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Prasad J wrote:

You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be?

Exactly the same.

Just like if someone came here calling himself "David Duke".

On 5/21/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:

"Wheel war" is not an epithet, it is a description of an activity. When you undo an admins actions without first discussing it with him, or getting broad consensus for doing so, you are wheel warring. That, in fact, is what happened here. And since *everyone* is agreed that Saladin1970 deserved *at least* a 1 week block, any discussion regarding the appropriateness of an indefinite block could have taken place during that week. There was no pressing need to immediately undo the block and impose a different one. Wheel warring is bad.

Jay.

He pretty much had consensus here on the list though. There were what, three of four admins that thought that an indefinite block was way over the top. And he didn't do anything totally unreasonable, it's still a one week block, plenty of time for you to explain your reasons to the rest of us.

Why are we even fighting here? We all agree that this guy should be blocked, the only issue is for how long, and I'm sure that if we stop using inflammatory terms (wheel war, that is) and just calmed down we could come to an agreement.

Can we please stop screaming "Wheel warrior!" to anyone who does anything slightly resembling a wheel war, but is in actuality, pretty reasonable. You know, "Don't let process stand in the way of common sense", that kind of a thing. I know Ryan Delaney meant no offence, so lets not do the hurt-feelings thing. --Oskar

I'm sorry Prasad, I never said I identify with SPC. England: In fact, I condemn her actions as strongly as possible. I do think it is shameful for users to refer to US soldiers with disrespect: I also feel it's shameful for people to refer to ANY soldiers with disrespect. I believe the Bushido code, the Way of the Warrior is alive and well amongst soldiers. As for your side note, you're entitled to your beliefs.

-Dan/Swatjester

On 5/21/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:

You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be? Just like some Muslims support Hamza, there are Americans (I have met these people on the internet) who condone what England did to POWs in Abu Ghraib. If a situation arises where a user identifies with a sadist like Lyndie, will the Community react in such a strong manner. Especially you Mr. Rosenthal-I have noticed that you have implied on a certain occassion that it was "freakin shameful" for users to refer to U.S soldiers with disrespect. On a side-note let me make it clear to you that I do NOT respect American soldiers and personally think of them as a band of glorified mercenaries and you do not have any authority whatsoever to refer to my opinion as "shamegul". Perhaps you are accustomed to violating the human-rights of Iraqi POWs, but you cannot do the same to me especially since I am not a U.S citizen and hence owe no loyalty to the American military. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 5/21/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:

...

It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman or not, wouldn't you?

NO! The right to remain anonymous on Wikipedia is SACRED. Don't mess with it unless you want someone to reveal who "alphasigmax@gmail.com" is. If you want to inquire about someones real identity, then email that person DIRECTLY.

You're at cross purposes. Richard Stallman is famous. If someone is posting as "Richard Stallman", we really do want to know if it's him or not. We could simply ask him to give us proof that it's really him, but if it's not - or he declines to say so - we don't need any further info.

Steve

On 5/21/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

well jaygy, i haven't seen anything from you , to justify a ban at all. If i recall you stated i was to be banned indefinately because

a) copy right violations. You have still as yet to produce any evidence for this. If you can't that means you deliberately lied in order to justify blocking me

For the 3rd time, you copied large sections of text verbatim 3 times from the zionism-realenemyofthejews.com into the Alan Hart article. Here are the links where you did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid=... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid=...

I also listed in previous e-mails your attacks on Talk: pages etc. Do you plan to claim for a 4th time that I have produced no evidence of your copyright violations? Do you plan to yet again claim it was your "friends" who were reverting for you from your home and workplace? Do you plan to again claim that the fact that the real Abu Hamza claims Harold Shipman is a Jew, and you keep inserting that claim into the article on Harold Shipman, has nothing to do with your chosen name "Abu Hamza"?

Your continued denials of behavior that has already been documented show quite well why your indefinite ban is justified.

Jay.

On 5/21/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:

No, plenty of time for him to try to get consensus for reducing the block. I haven't seen that consensus yet.

You don't get consensus for reducing community bans or indefinite blocks. You get consensus for making them.

Ryan

On 5/21/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:

Instead of threatening to bring down the wrath of the Muslim world upon us, I think you'd be better off explaining why your apparent obsession with Jews and Zionism is compatible with our mission of compiling a neutral, accurate encyclopedia.

Apart from the reverting, the 3RR violation, the sockpuppetry, the copyright violation, the repeated unsourced insertion that a serial killer was Jewish, and the all-round obsession with Jews, there was this comment in response to an October 2004 post from banned user Alberuni (who had similar problems): "well he [Jayjg] seems to be stalking me to put his zionist POV, saladin, but never mind this is to be expected of zionists." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_Territor...

This is exactly the kind of comment and attitude we can do without.

Sarah

On 5/22/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

Apart from the reverting, the 3RR violation, the sockpuppetry, the copyright violation, the repeated unsourced insertion that a serial killer was Jewish, and the all-round obsession with Jews, there was this comment in response to an October 2004 post from banned user Alberuni (who had similar problems): "well he [Jayjg] seems to be stalking me to put his zionist POV, saladin, but never mind this is to be expected of zionists." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_Territor...

This is exactly the kind of comment and attitude we can do without.

Don't think I don't entirely agree, but I was trying to get through to him that wikilaywering and threats of a mass uprising won't help his case. His case, such as it is, depends upon him convincing us that he's not here to use Wikipedia to fight Jews. I don't think he's convinced anyone of that yet, but he's not going to do it by arguing about fair use.

As a side-note have any of you noticed that the 9/11 Memorial Wiki has not been deleted despite ample consensus being achieved towards its deletion? Don't you guys feel that there were far greater tragedies which occured during the 20th century-like World War 2 or the Holocaust or the Nagasaki-Hiroshima Nuclear bombing, apartheid in Africa, to name a few? Making such a big deal about the loss of 3000 lives while fully neglecting much more horrific incidents is a shockingly clear example of how America-centric Wikipedia has become. I urge someone to please delete this absurd memorial which seems (in a way) to place the people who died on 9/11 on a much higher pedestal than (for example) the 7 million who were murdered in Nazi Germany.

G'day Prasad,

As a side-note have any of you noticed that the 9/11 Memorial Wiki has not been deleted despite ample consensus being achieved towards its deletion? Don't you guys feel that there were far greater tragedies which occured during the 20th century-like World War 2 or the Holocaust or the Nagasaki-Hiroshima Nuclear bombing, apartheid in Africa, to name a few? Making such a big deal about the loss of 3000 lives while fully neglecting much more horrific incidents is a shockingly clear example of how America-centric Wikipedia has become. I urge someone to please delete this absurd memorial which seems (in a way) to place the people who died on 9/11 on a much higher pedestal than (for example) the 7 million who were murdered in Nazi Germany.

It may have escaped your notice, but the "9/11 Memorial Wiki" is not a part of Wikipedia (IIRC it's on Wikicities, but ICBW). It therefore slots neatly into that segment of the Internet that I like to pleasantly describe as "my not-giving-a-fuck zone". I'm sure most Wikipedians have a similar view. It is *not* our problem, *not* our business, and *not* our fault that it exists. Now, there are good reasons for it to be created, and good reasons for it to not have been created. And it's my pleasant duty, as a good (I hope) Wikipedian, to happily Not Give A Fuck about those reasons, or indeed any other project on the Internet that happens to have the word "wiki" in it somewhere.

You cannot infer anything about Wikipedia from the existence of an unrelated project, and I'll thank you not to even make the attempt. And for what it's worth, we are getting *less* America-centric, not more. The project began in America, and for a time (with a few brave exceptions) was largely American. We still bear the scars! But slowly we're getting more viewpoints, better spellers, etc., etc.

In a way, it's rather frustrating to have someone from a non-Western culture show up and immediately begin behaving incredibly badly, screaming about "Zionist conspiracies on Wikipedia" and so on. We *need* editors who don't share the same worldview, but we *don't* need lunatics. Do you think you could muster up some people who can combat our systemic bias problem but also wouldn't go flying off the deep end and start confusing neutrality with Zionism? Because that would be very welcome.

On 5/22/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:

Yes ofcourse you are. That's why a certain group of users is going around calling anyone who supports the WTC controlled-demolition theory a "nutjob" isn't it?

Ignorant has more letters in it.

"Prasad J" wrote

Do you think you could muster up some people who can combat our systemic bias problem but also wouldn't go flying off the deep end and start confusing neutrality with Zionism? Because that would be very welcome.

I agree. We need much, much more work on systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. We are effectively the flagship Wikipedia, and it would be also good to be the one most on top of the systemic bias issue. And we have to be careful to keep it non-politicised. Systemic bias is a blot on the claim to be 'encyclopedic', to give a genuine panorama. It improves the 'pedia for everyone, to bear down on it.

Charles

"Steve Bennett" wrote

It states that it *was* part of wikipedia.

Yes, a chapter in the early history. In fact a 'historic debate': is everyone who died in 9/11 automatically notable? WP was young in 2001.

Charles

On 5/22/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

obsession with zionism? no more so that slimline or humus sapien. am i interested in the zionist page having a NPOV. Absolutely, which is why i inserted a section on the three talmuds, as per wikipedia NPOV, wherebye a NPOV is not just presenting a majority view, but includes minority views in proportion. After all the middle east is the major conflict region at the moment, and the least we can do is to have the most popular site describing zionism reflect a NPOV.

And as to the wrath of 1.7 billion muslims. If wikipedia is to what is says on the can, be a community and not just an anglo american community then it needs to address the very real biases, such as using someones email name of abu hamza as a reason for banning. what do you think rob

Please stop dissembling. You were not blocked because of your e-mail name, but for multiple policy violations and general poor editing.

Sarah

common-sense systemic bias

Common sense shows that the U.S would have major geo-politcal motives for orchecstrating the 9/11 attacks. You will agree that the occuaption of the oil-rich country of Iraq,the extension of U.S military presence in Afghanistan [which provides America with a certain amount of significance in the Indian Subcontinent (a highly important area in terms of political significance)] will be enough motive for the U.S to fake the "terrorist attacks" on 9/11.

On 5/22/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:

common-sense systemic bias

Common sense shows that the U.S would have major geo-politcal motives for orchecstrating the 9/11 attacks. You will agree that the occuaption of the oil-rich country of Iraq,the extension of U.S military presence in Afghanistan [which provides America with a certain amount of significance in the Indian Subcontinent (a highly important area in terms of political significance)] will be enough motive for the U.S to fake the "terrorist attacks" on 9/11.

No, by common sense, I meant the ability to decide which sources are worth paying attention to, and which should be ignored.

Sarah

On 5/22/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:

Ignorant? I suggest you examine the data presented by various scientists in support of this theory. Incase you are unable to comprehend such scientific arguements, go through through the logical arguements put forth at http://www.reopen911.org/.

Please you don't seriouly think I haven't been keeping a vauge eye on the conspirocy theorists that belive this one (the "moon landings were faked bunch" have become two easy to debunk and the kennedy asasination mob appear to be fadeing away). I see they make the olkd the twoers fell in free fall claim. Of course the problem with this one is that if you look at deberies around the towers that is in free fall it falls faster than the towers.

Still since argument by link seems popular at the moment:

http://www.911myths.com/

Humus Sapiens wrote:

On 5/20/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:

...

On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote: […] Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?

Let's respect everyone's privacy please. I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum.

Check again what he actually asked.

The question was not "what is your real name?" it was "is that name you are using actually your real name?" which is not necessarily the same thing.

FYI, and just in case you were wondering, the likely reason for wanting to know this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

This is not a name without connotations, and the reasons for choosing it might make interesting reading.

HTH HAND

On 5/22/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:

common-sense systemic bias

Common sense shows that the U.S would have major geo-politcal motives for orchecstrating the 9/11 attacks. You will agree that the occuaption of the oil-rich country of Iraq,the extension of U.S military presence in Afghanistan [which provides America with a certain amount of significance in the Indian Subcontinent (a highly important area in terms of political significance)] will be enough motive for the U.S to fake the "terrorist attacks" on 9/11.

Not really. If the US wanted a solid motive for invading Iraq it would be fairly trivial to plant some WMD for the inspectors to find. Or allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone. Fair trivial and produces a much stronger case than the unrelated 9/11

If the US wanted a military presence in the Indian sub continent they could of, Oh to chose a random country, paid Tajikistan to put a base there. Could have been sold as supporting about the only democracy amongst all those former bits of the USSR. Or they could have gone to Nepal to sort out the Maoist lot.

I did not start the arguement. I was only asking why the 9/11 Memorial Wiki had not been deleted despite obvious consensus toward it's deletion. That is (in my opinion) Wikipedia-related since the Memorial Wiki has .wikipedia in it's URL.

Oh to chose a random country, paid Tajikistan to put a base

India already has bases there-the sudden entry of the U.S would offend the former , and I'm pretty sure a former Soviet-block country like Tajikistan, or any other country in proximity to the Subcontinent, would not really allow U.S military presence on it's soil.

Or they could have gone to Nepal to sort out the Maoist lot.

That would make it appear as if America was supporting the King-who has always been viewed as somewhat of a dictator.

the US wanted a solid motive for invading Iraq it would be fairly trivial to plant some WMD for the inspectors to find. Or allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone. Fair trivial and produces a much stronger case than the unrelated 9/11

These would not have evoked as strong a reaction in the U.S as the killing of 3000 Americans ON American soil would. As for WMDs- it is not really all that easy to "plant" them without the act being noticed.

Or allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone.

The Iraqis are not foolhardy enough to actively provoke the U.S by shooting down one of the latter's planes. Also, by analysing the plane's flight-path it would be obvious that the pilot did not make any effort to dodge the missile. Also the lack of flares (used to avoid heat-seeking missiles) or chaffs would be noticed. Thus, it would be obvious that the American pilot was not making any effort to evade the attack-a very unusual occurence indeed. More importantly I doubt whether the U.S. airforce has a kamikaze squadron.

Good arguements nontheless.

Methylphosphonyl difluoride onto a pipe that the Weapons inspctors wanted to cheack or the like

And you think that the Iraqis would allow that? They wouldn't be (heavily) guarding the areas that the U.N Inspectors wanted to check? Heh!, you don't know much about security-systems do you?

So? Cut a few wirers and the pilot would never see the thing comming. There would be various other methods. Send a B-52 over for example.

Soldiers would be willing to cut the wires and kill their own colleagues? Anyway the pilot would probably do a pre-flight check so it wouldn't work. B-52s are bombers- fighters are used as patrol-craft not bombers, how would the U.S explain why they were using a bomber to patrol the no-fly-zone?

I was responding to Geni. Sorry if it strayed off topic too much.

On 5/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

I Know a fair bit. Use a spayt and you could probably contaminate everything in the room within a few seconds. You could hide then can in your cloths.

Hi geni, This message too has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Maybe you could carry on the conversation in private?

Steve

I agree with Bjorn, if Islamism is a political agenda that is to be avoided, then so is anti-Islamism.

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob

On 5/22/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:

...

As a side-note have any of you noticed that the 9/11

Memorial Wiki has

...

not been deleted despite ample consensus being achieved towards its deletion? Don't you guys feel that there were far greater tragedies which occured during the 20th century-like World War 2 or the Holocaust or the Nagasaki-Hiroshima Nuclear bombing, apartheid in Africa, to name a few? Making such a big deal about the

loss of 3000

...

lives while fully neglecting much more horrific incidents is a shockingly clear example of how America-centric Wikipedia

has become.

...

I urge someone to please delete this absurd memorial which

seems (in a

...

way) to place the people who died on 9/11 on a much higher pedestal than (for example) the 7 million who were murdered in Nazi Germany.

Anyone can start a wiki on any subject. If you feel that the tragedy of the Holocaust, for example, is terribly underrepresented on the internet, go start a wiki on the subject. The solution is to fix the problem of underrepresentation, not to delete what is already represented.

Hear hear! All of the above are tragedies of immense proportions and should be known and understood by as many as possible. We should have MORE memorial wikis, not fewer. I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington last year and it was a distressing and sobering experience. Last month I was in Hiroshima, where the scars of the attack remain beneath the cherry blossoms, and it was a poignant but beautiful moment in my life.

We should learn about these and other tragedies and say "NEVER AGAIN!"

Pete, unable to think of a tagline

Philip Welch wrote:

On May 20, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

...

I just look through [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] and find no mention of a connection with the 9/11 incident.

"Hamza has publicly expressed support for al-Qaeda [and] Osama bin Laden."

Again, I'm not claiming he was connected to 9/11, only that he supports that kind of violence. Consider:

"John Doe has publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge [and] Pol Pot."

If anyone came on this listserv publicly identifying with such a John Doe, I'd want to run him out for the same reason.

To me the issue is not whether he supports these causes, but how he does so. NPOV allows a place for supporters of al-Qaeda to make their pitch about whatever may be good about it. Rather than run them out it would be to our broad advantage if these individuals learned to express these views in a more constructive manner.

For someone like our Abu Hamza (who at first appearance seems to have indeed engaged in unacceptable editing) it would help if we had mentors available who are sympathetic but rationale in dealing with such points of view. Perhaps they could pull aside and counsel these wilder newbies in techniques for constructively presenting their opinions.

Ec

jayjg wrote:

On 5/20/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:

...

just for the record, and for all of those who have suggested it is wrong to use a controversial name. My name is abu hamza..

That's as believable as your claims that your friends at work and home simply reverted for you as IPs. It wasn't you at all, it was all your "friends".

This seems highly disrespectful to disbelieve a person who claims to be using his own name. There needs to be more to that than your personal finding that the name is objectionable. If you doubt that it is his name you should provide evidence that he is lying.

...

However it is not my wiki name, it is the name on the email.

Right. Your wiki name is Saladin1970, Saladin being the Muslim conquerer who drove the Crusaders out of Palestine. I suppose that's your real name too, and there's no political implication there?

There may certainly be political implications, but Western teaching about the Crusades rarely mention the names of the Muslim leaders. The tone in [[Saladin]] emphasizes his chivalrous character. He was, however, intolerant of Christian terrorists.

Ec

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge

Dan Rosenthal wrote:

...

I'm sorry Prasad, I never said I identify with SPC. England:

In fact, I

...

condemn her actions as strongly as possible. I do think it

is shameful

...

for users to refer to US soldiers with disrespect: I also feel it's shameful for people to refer to ANY soldiers with

disrespect. I believe

...

the Bushido code, the Way of the Warrior is alive and well amongst soldiers.

I would not be inclined to view any trained killer with undeserved respect.

Not until they put the gun down...

On May 22, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

For someone like our Abu Hamza (who at first appearance seems to have indeed engaged in unacceptable editing) it would help if we had mentors available who are sympathetic but rationale in dealing with such points of view. Perhaps they could pull aside and counsel these wilder newbies in techniques for constructively presenting their opinions.

So you're willing to have Islamists, white supremacists, etc. openly editing Wikipedia as long as they attempt to follow NPOV? I don't. I think the presence of such individuals is harmful to the community.

On May 22, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:

...

So you're willing to have Islamists, white supremacists, etc. openly editing Wikipedia as long as they attempt to follow NPOV? I don't. I think the presence of such individuals is harmful to the community.

That's a very POV statement in itself.

The presence of holders of minority (and majority) viewpoints on WP is welcome. So long as they don't attempt to impose their views above all others, and they are civil to other editors.

That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists, radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho- capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti- Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult.

On 5/22/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:

That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists, radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho- capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti- Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult.

It's a pity we're using the example of anti-Semitism. Maybe we could keep this more abstract? Say I'm a rabid anti-Pokemonite (not far from the truth :)). Does the existence of Pokemon fans on Wikipedia make me unwelcome? Nah, I just keep my distance.

You might find similarities in the fact that we have both sides of various ethnic conflicts, in Yugoslavia or Israel and whatever. We also have anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists. Do they bicker? Yep. Does the very fabric of Wikipedia fall apart? Nah.

Steve

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch

That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists, radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho- capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti- Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult.

Perhaps we should ban all intolerant users.

Pete, pegging the first yonnie

On May 22, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

...

That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists, radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho- capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti- Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult.

It's a pity we're using the example of anti-Semitism. Maybe we could keep this more abstract? Say I'm a rabid anti-Pokemonite (not far from the truth :)). Does the existence of Pokemon fans on Wikipedia make me unwelcome? Nah, I just keep my distance.

That's different for so many important reasons. One big reason is that there are no actual Pokemon editing Wikipedia, because Pokemon don't exist in reality. Jews do.

You might find similarities in the fact that we have both sides of various ethnic conflicts, in Yugoslavia or Israel and whatever. We also have anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists. Do they bicker? Yep. Does the very fabric of Wikipedia fall apart? Nah.

Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK as well as large numbers of black editors. Still don't see the problem?

On May 22, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:

...

That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists, radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho- capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti- Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult.

Perhaps we should ban all intolerant users.

That's precisely my proposal.

On 5/22/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/22/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:

...

Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK as well as large numbers of black editors. Still don't see the problem?

Nope, and we've been around and around on this on the mailing list before. People who make good edits are welcome to do so, regardless of ideological affinity.

Right. Which, of course, was not the case here; quite the opposite in fact, as there is no evidence of even a single "good edit".

Jay.