Someone wrote "You want TBSDY desysopped because he blocked SS-88 after he said this:"
"You consider the right side of the fence to be on the
side of the
haters. You call us stupid, but you should know that we
have a log of
your hatred and abuse of "power" against one of our
comrades. THAT WAS
STUPID! Your actions have been documented and have, so
far, been
circulated to thousands of aryans who do not look kindly
on your type
of hatred. You know what happens to people who ignore
history......
88 !!"
I refer you to the blocking policy: "Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have
been made or
actions performed (including actions outside the
Wikipedia site)
which expose other Wikipedia editors to political,
religious or other
persecution by government, their employer or any others.
In such
a case a ban for a period of time may be applied
immediately by any
sysop upon discovery. "
Teresa responded, very rationaly:
This looks like a pretty straightforward case to me
It also sounds straightforward to me. If we allow violent hatespeech by Nazis, white supremacists, Nation of Islam black supremacists, "Heil Hitler" comments, and the like on Wikipedia, we will instantly become a joke.
The use of Wikipedia would then rightly be banned by all high schools, and by most colleges. Professional scholars and academics will be forced to see Wikipedia not as an encyclopedia, but rather as some sort of sick experiment in using the phrase "free speech" as an excuse to shove the most violent hate and lies, and as a forum where dispassionate and rational contributors are scared off.
Many present and potential black contributors will *certainly* be driven away if allow them to be the victims of such abuse and persecution. The same is true for many present and potential Jewish, Gay, and other contributors. The project will simply cease to exist as it presently does.
Already I have been pursued by one many who openly identified himself as a Nazi (John Hoode, aka Mr. Natural Health) and was threatened by Craig, Entmoots of Trolls, who promised to send me identity to fundamentalist Islamist groups, who at the time (and now) were mass murdering Jews and many others. Now we have a number of individuals with similar beliefs attacking non-"Aryans", saying "88" (code for "Heil Hitler", and abusing and driving away decent contributors.
Any rational person should see this as the death of Wikipedia, and most of our Sysops rightly ban such actions. So I was hurt and stunned when Zero 0000 _again_ defended Nazi hatespeech and harassment, and called for its acceptance on Wikipedia.
Zero 0000 writes:
I must be missing something. How do these (highly
offensive)
remarks expose this sysop to "political, religious or
other
persecution by government, their employer or any others"?
These attacks in of themselves are persecution and harassment. Maybe you don't know what it is like to be a black person, a gay person, or a Jew, but many of us do. Being cyver-followed around by hatemongers who scream "Heil Hitler" and who abuse us, and who advocate violence, is by the very definition of the word "persecution". How can people not recognize this?
Unless the sysop lives in a state with a Nazi government,
it
is clear to me that there is no such exposure.
Is this an ironic joke, or are you writing as if such hatespeech does not exist? Do you have any idea how many Jews, gays and blacks are beaten each year by the very people who engage in such harassment and hatespeech? In my own town in the USA a Jewish synagogue was burned less than four years ago by people spewing this hatespeech. In my own school we have had Jews taunted and swastikas drawn on the walls and posters. We also have had death threats made against blacks by certain white groups...and these threats led to serious beatings of black students less than three months ago.
Free speech about killing Jews always leads to killing Jews. The same is true about speech towards killing "niggers" or "queers". Have we learned nothing from the 20th century?
I find Zero's acceptance of this violent, explicitly Nazi hatespeech to be a clear danger to Wikipedia. We can be an encyclopedia where hatemongers are not welcome, working to create a peer-reviewed NPOV open-source encyclopedia. Or we can allow those people Zero continually defends to destroy our own work, and make us a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The choice is clear.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Unless the sysop lives in a state with a Nazi government,
it
is clear to me that there is no such exposure.
By this argument comments such as "when we take power we will put you up against a wall and shoot you" should be perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia talk exchanges. After all, until and unless the person making the statement is in power the statement shouldn't be regarded as a threat.
Andy
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:12:03 -0500, AndyL andyl2004@sympatico.ca wrote:
Unless the sysop lives in a state with a Nazi government,
it
is clear to me that there is no such exposure.
By this argument comments such as "when we take power we will put you up against a wall and shoot you" should be perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia talk exchanges. After all, until and unless the person making the statement is in power the statement shouldn't be regarded as a threat.
Andy
It seems to me that there are two separate but related issues at hand: 1. Banning uses who make threats; and 2. Banning users due to their professed beliefs or associations.
For me, the first is beyond question. We even ban users for making legal threats. If someone makes a threat to health, life, family, safety, or even to privacy, that user should be dealt with swiftly and emphatically. Such behavior has no place on Wikipedia.
However, the second is also beyond question -- in the negative. There is no way to reconcile such banning of contributors by POV with Wikipedia's mission and culture. How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
Do we have confidence in the Wikipedia way, or do we not?
-Rich Holton
Richard Holton wrote
How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
I think that is one of those over-interpretations of what NPOV says.
Take an example: non-English speakers. In effect they can't access the English Wikipedia. Can we make the English Wikipedia reflect the aspect of the world, that well under 10% of people are native speakers of English, and, what, another 10% learn to speak English? Well, I hope so; NPOV means that all contributions should take into account that not everyone is a native anglophone. It is anyway not the same issue as saying writing in English (or any other language) excludes most of the planet.
Do we have confidence in the Wikipedia way, or do we not?
Actually, I do, pretty much. The way says 'come one, come all'. Doesn't say that people can behave as they like. What is more, the way is distrustful of legalism - and all the better for that. Those who push the limits of the system start rowing away from the bulk of the community. The important part of that is that those who _do not do that_ should expect protection.
Charles
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:07:41 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Richard Holton wrote
How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
I think that is one of those over-interpretations of what NPOV says.
Take an example: non-English speakers. In effect they can't access the English Wikipedia. Can we make the English Wikipedia reflect the aspect of the world, that well under 10% of people are native speakers of English, and, what, another 10% learn to speak English? Well, I hope so; NPOV means that all contributions should take into account that not everyone is a native anglophone. It is anyway not the same issue as saying writing in English (or any other language) excludes most of the planet.
Try not to introduce entirely separate topics into the discussion, and try not to quote out of context. Yes, we exclude people who can't read English from participating in the English Wikipedia (though of course there are MANY other language Wikipedias).. Literacy in a particular language has nothing to do with dis-allowing participation based on beliefs or affiliations.
Do we have confidence in the Wikipedia way, or do we not?
Actually, I do, pretty much. The way says 'come one, come all'. Doesn't say that people can behave as they like.
This is precisely my point. We do not tolerate certain _behaviors_. But people of all beliefs are welcome to participate.
What is more, the way is distrustful of legalism - and all the better for that. Those who push the limits of the system start rowing away from the bulk of the community. The important part of that is that those who _do not do that_ should expect protection.
No, Charles. The "Wikipedia way" is to assume good faith until proved otherwise. That is a core principle of Nikis in general, and Wikipedia in particular.
Do you really believe that the Wikipedia way is "distrustful legalism"? I hope I have misunderstood you.
-Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
Richard Holton wrote
Literacy in a particular language has nothing to do with dis-allowing participation based on beliefs or affiliations.
I thought I was illustrating why my reading of NPOV was not yours.
Do you really believe that the Wikipedia way is "distrustful legalism"? I hope I have misunderstood you.
What I wrote was of course "distrustful of legalism". Big difference.
Charles
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:56:28 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Richard Holton wrote
Literacy in a particular language has nothing to do with dis-allowing participation based on beliefs or affiliations.
I thought I was illustrating why my reading of NPOV was not yours.
Do you really believe that the Wikipedia way is "distrustful legalism"? I hope I have misunderstood you.
What I wrote was of course "distrustful of legalism". Big difference.
My sincere apology, Charles. I _did_ misunderstand, er, mis-read you. And I am relieved to find that I did.
-Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
Richard Holton wrote:
Do we have confidence in the Wikipedia way, or do we not?
There are fewer than you might think, a la US high school students not understanding freedom of speech.
There is also a large contingent who are all for the "wiki way" as long as all the editors of an article agree with them; one discordant voice, and it's "WP is doomed unless the system is changed to lock out morons and vandals". You can always tell, because further inquiry reveals that the deluge of "morons and vandals" just consists of the one person who disagrees.
Stan
Stan Shebs said:
There is also a large contingent who are all for the "wiki way" as long as all the editors of an article agree with them; one discordant voice, and it's "WP is doomed unless the system is changed to lock out morons and vandals". You can always tell, because further inquiry reveals that the deluge of "morons and vandals" just consists of the one person who disagrees.
Yep. This is normal.
Robert stated for the record:
We can be an encyclopedia where hatemongers are not welcome, working to create a peer-reviewed NPOV open-source encyclopedia. Or we can allow those people Zero continually defends to destroy our own work, and make us a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The choice is clear.
Robert (RK)
You are absolutely right. The choice is clear. Freedom of speech, especially of speech we find hateful, is infinitely more important than sanctimonious attempts to create a controlled "classroom" environment.
Now we have a number of individuals with similar beliefs attacking non-"Aryans", saying "88" (code for "Heil Hitler", and abusing and driving away decent contributors.
That's not actually true they (actually they were probably all the same person) were blocked almost straight away. They haven't driven anyone away.
So I was hurt and stunned when Zero 0000 _again_ defended Nazi hatespeech and harassment, and called for its acceptance on Wikipedia.
He didn't do any such thing, he queried a block and wondered whether it was within our blocking policy. He wasn't sure if the block was justified and wanted to discuss the matter. That doesn't make him a defender of hatespeech. ~~~~
From: Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com
Now we have a number of individuals with similar beliefs attacking non-"Aryans", saying "88" (code for "Heil Hitler", and abusing and driving away decent contributors.
That's not actually true they (actually they were probably all the same person) were blocked almost straight away. They haven't driven anyone away.
Right. The planned attack by neo-Nazis was generally a bust. Though there are now regular and sometimes nasty incursions from the group, in general they are a minor nuisance.
So I was hurt and stunned when Zero 0000 _again_ defended Nazi hatespeech and harassment, and called for its acceptance on Wikipedia.
He didn't do any such thing, he queried a block and wondered whether it was within our blocking policy. He wasn't sure if the block was justified and wanted to discuss the matter. That doesn't make him a defender of hatespeech. ~~~~
Exactly.
Jay.