So... - Amalekite wasn't banned for non NPOV (apparently there's no evidence of his/her non-NPOV edits) - Amalekite wasn't banned for being a neo-Nazi (the consensus is that we can't block people of any particular political/religious persuasion) - Amalekite wasn't banned for disagreeing with me about group X of society (the consensus seems to be that people are entitled to their viewpoints no matter how warped)
(I'm glad we got that out of the way -- hard as it was to put aside)
But - Amalekite was banned for making a threat to disrupt Wikipedia (even though this was off of Wikipedia)
Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him?
Lisa [[User:Lisathurston]]
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:59:40 -0400 From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced, or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.
Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.
Jay.
From: Lisa Thurston lisathurston@gmail.com
Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him?
Lisa, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I didn't block him. SlimVirgin has already said if you disagree with the block please write to SlimVirgin or Homeontherange, because they are the blocking admins; this, in fact, is the protocol if you disagree with a block. I'm sure they'd welcome an e-mail from you.
Jay.
On 8/25/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Lisa Thurston lisathurston@gmail.com Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him?
Lisa, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I didn't block him. SlimVirgin has already said if you disagree with the block please write to SlimVirgin or Homeontherange ...
Lisa, please drop me a note in private if you have concerns about this. Just to make clear once again: he was blocked for posting the list of editors on the other website. The relevant part of the blocking policy is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Personal_attacks_whic...
I feel that Amalekite exposed the people on his "hit list" to potential religious or ethnic persecution outside Wikipedia by posting on an anti-Semitic website a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews. Some of the user names allow those people to be traced using only online information. For me, it was enough to warrant a block. This kind of behavior has nothing to do with writing an encycylopedia.
I probably won't respond again to this topic, though I'd be happy to hear from anyone offlist. I just wanted to link to the relevant part of the blocking policy for those of you who still have concerns.
Sarah
Just to make clear once again: he was blocked for posting the list of editors on the other website.
Thank you! It was by no means clear to me before now that this was the fundamental reason.
The relevant part of the blocking policy is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Personal_attacks_whic...
The full text follows:
"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. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. See No personal attacks.
This provision is rarely used."
Even if we accept that this provision applies in this case (I do not, but I would agree that it is a borderline case) the provision calls for a "ban for a period of time", not an indefinite block.
Regards, Haukur
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Just to make clear once again: he was blocked for posting the list of editors on the other website.
Thank you! It was by no means clear to me before now that this was the fundamental reason.
Agreed. The focus has been on trolling and disruption, and that he's a Nazi. The argument that he was blocked for making personal attacks which put editors in danger was not, until now, made explicit. The block logs:
* 23:21, 19 August 2005 Homeontherange blocked "User:Amalekite" with an expiry time of indefinite (neo-nazi Troll soliciting other trolls off of Stormfront)
* 08:16, 23 August 2005 SlimVirgin blocked "User:Amalekite" with an expiry time of indefinite (disruption; posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the Stormfront website; posted details of how to edit using proxies and sockpuppets)
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Lisa Thurston lisathurston@gmail.com wrote:
- Amalekite was banned for making a threat to disrupt Wikipedia (even
though this was off of Wikipedia)
That's the reason given, but think it's arguable. Amalekite certainly was encouraging people to edit Wikipedia to remove what he perceived to be bias. At least initially, he was specifically asking people to follow NPOV, avoid personal attacks and insults, and generally follow the rules.
He did post a list of users he believed were part of a "Zionist cabal" along with a few insults ("vicious", "ruthless" and "idiots"). And after he was banned, he did start speculating about edit warring over a long period.
That's only from one thread (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536). He might have said more elsewhere, but from that thread, I don't think there's evidence he was inciting disruption of Wikipedia before he was banned.
I would argue that the blocking admin(s) would have done well to document exactly why this user was banned, complete with URLs, because it's darn hard to find the evidence.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com