On May 23, 2006, at 2:00 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
When you say "no useful edits," does that mean that you are "able to provide evidence of your accusations?" It seems to be that Saladin1970 definitely has made useful contribution(s):
I can't comment on the 2nd link you gave, but this one at least...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Turkic_peoples&diff=53987242&oldid=53921254.
This one is already addressed *directly* below, and links to a quite long, and apparently well-referenced article on the subject: [[Xiongnu]]. While I, personally can't comment on the good faith or lack of such in the edit, it was, in fact, not useful where it was put, and was redundant (as best as I can tell) in the article where it should have been put.
Jesse Weinstein
would you consider this useful jesse?
13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m population of muslims and famous chinese muslims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
p.s here is the wikipedia policy on amaturism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Amateurs
"Many ignorant people who think they know stuff will riddle articles with errors and serious omissions."
In all honesty, Wikipedia has a fair bit of well-meaning, but ill-informed and amateurish work. In fact, we welcome it an amateurish article to be improved later is better than nothing. In any case, when new hands (particularly, experts on the subjects in question) arrive and go to work, the amateurish work is usually straightened out. Really egregious errors are fixed quickly by the thousands of people who read Wikipedia every day. In general, the worse the error, the faster it will be noticed and fixed. As Linus' Law states, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." The editor base of Wikipedia is large enough that errors are usually small.
From: Jesse W jessw@netwood.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:20:42 -0700
On May 23, 2006, at 2:00 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
When you say "no useful edits," does that mean that you are "able to provide evidence of your accusations?" It seems to be that Saladin1970 definitely has made useful contribution(s):
I can't comment on the 2nd link you gave, but this one at least...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Turkic_peoples&diff=53987242&oldid=53921254.
This one is already addressed *directly* below, and links to a quite long, and apparently well-referenced article on the subject: [[Xiongnu]]. While I, personally can't comment on the good faith or lack of such in the edit, it was, in fact, not useful where it was put, and was redundant (as best as I can tell) in the article where it should have been put.
Jesse Weinstein _______________________________________________ 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 May 23, 2006, at 2:48 PM, abu hamza wrote:
would you consider this useful jesse?
13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m population of muslims and famous chinese muslims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
Er - that edit does not seem to have been made by the account Saladin1970. I'm not sure what I am supposed to make of this, except for further evidence of a lack of good edits. (if the only good edit that can be pointed out was not made by the account in question, then....)
Jesse Weinstein
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad.
We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the first sentence as a "convicted felon," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&... and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic or Judaism fascist.
That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
Sarah
well lets get ther record straight. The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first time). I didn't add it. It was then removed repeatedly. the few references that are available (not usable in wikipedia) such as letters to newspapers on websites ( i have given the link here already) state he was jewish as his mother was a jewish asylum seeker. Whether it should be included on his page is debatable, because you would then have to go through all the pages where criminal and muslim are put together and ban the editor of that page indefinately.
Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an indefinate ban???
The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones obsession with taking it out.
From: Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:43:03 -0500
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad.
We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the first sentence as a "convicted felon," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&... and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic or Judaism fascist.
That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
Sarah _______________________________________________ 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
On 5/24/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first time).
(a) Can you show me diffs to its previous inclusion in the article? (b) Can you please explain why you felt it was relevant, and not only that, but so relevant that it had to be in the first sentence?
Sarah
here is an earlier example where it was already there cur) (last) 01:17, 13 May 2006 87.80.113.51
the reason why i felt it was relevant , was because in a discussion elsewhere off the wikipedia site it was mentioned (and wikipedia sourced). The conversation surrounded the scarcity of any references to harold shipmas past. I went to check and it had been removed. I put it back in. I then researched the issue. In fact it was the very first time i had signed into wikipedia.
the reason why i put it in the first sentence was because that was where it was originally.
From: Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] for slimline and the reference to harold shipman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 02:36:07 -0500
On 5/24/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first time).
(a) Can you show me diffs to its previous inclusion in the article? (b) Can you please explain why you felt it was relevant, and not only that, but so relevant that it had to be in the first sentence?
Sarah _______________________________________________ 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
On 5/24/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
here is an earlier example where it was already there cur) (last) 01:17, 13 May 2006 87.80.113.51
the reason why i felt it was relevant , was because in a discussion elsewhere off the wikipedia site it was mentioned (and wikipedia sourced). The conversation surrounded the scarcity of any references to harold shipmas past. I went to check and it had been removed. I put it back in. I then researched the issue. In fact it was the very first time i had signed into wikipedia.
On May 13, an anon added to the intro that Shipman was Jewish. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=52931256&a... You re-added it on May 13 as your second edit and your first since March. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53056969&a... Another anon added it on May 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53327520&a... You again on May 16, twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53470294&a... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53553735&a... You on May 17. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53651143&a... You on May 18, twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53819990&a... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53826041&a...
Then you were blocked for 3RR elsewhere. You included no sources. You wrote in one edit summary that it had been mentioned during the Abu Hamza trial, but you didn't point out that it was Abu Hamza himself who had said it, and he hardly counts as reliable. You've still produced no reliable source. You still haven't explained why you felt it was relevant enough to include in the first sentence.
It looks to me as though it was mentioned on some anti-Semitic website, and a bunch of anon IPs, and you with an account you'd used only once before, decided to turn up and be bigoted and disruptive.
Sarah
abu hamza wrote:
well lets get ther record straight. The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first time). I didn't add it. It was then removed repeatedly. the few references that are available (not usable in wikipedia) such as letters to newspapers on websites ( i have given the link here already) state he was jewish as his mother was a jewish asylum seeker. Whether it should be included on his page is debatable, because you would then have to go through all the pages where criminal and muslim are put together and ban the editor of that page indefinately.
Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an indefinate ban???
The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones obsession with taking it out.
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
Ec
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
It isn't relevant enough to be put in the first line. If at all it has to be brought up, it should be added in a way that makes it seem insignificant.
G'day Prasad,
[Why aren't you quoting any more? It's not possible to tell who you're replying to, or what they said.]
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
It isn't relevant enough to be put in the first line. If at all it has to be brought up, it should be added in a way that makes it seem insignificant.
I disagree. If it has to be brought up, it should be introduced in a way that shows it's very significant indeed. Because if we can't honestly say it's relevant, we should not be saying it at all.
On 5/24/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Prasad,
[Why aren't you quoting any more? It's not possible to tell who you're replying to, or what they said.]
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
Fwiw, this line "Why is..." was actually quoted, it wasn't a rhetorical question. Gmail is good at that - it shows any line which appeared verbatim in a previous message in purple, whether or not it was actually preceded by
signs.
Now, back to Shipman's mother.
Steve
On 5/24/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
It isn't relevant enough to be put in the first line. If at all it has to be brought up, it should be added in a way that makes it seem insignificant.
I disagree. If it has to be brought up, it should be introduced in a way that shows it's very significant indeed. Because if we can't honestly say it's relevant, we should not be saying it at all.
The reason [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] raised it during his trial in the UK was as evidence that the British Foreign Office and media is controlled by Jews. Why did he believe this? Because Harold Shipman's Jewish background wasn't mentioned by the media during coverage of Shipman's murders. Ergo, Jews are in control. That either (a) Shipman didn't have a Jewish background or (b) he did but the media rightly dismissed it as irrelevant, is not entertained. For Abu Hamza al-Masri and his namesake on this mailing list, there's no such thing as editorial judgment. There are only Jewish conspiracies.
Sarah
G'day Sarah,
On 5/24/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
It isn't relevant enough to be put in the first line. If at all it has to be brought up, it should be added in a way that makes it seem insignificant.
I disagree. If it has to be brought up, it should be introduced in a way that shows it's very significant indeed. Because if we can't honestly say it's relevant, we should not be saying it at all.
The reason [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] raised it during his trial in the UK was as evidence that the British Foreign Office and media is controlled by Jews. Why did he believe this? Because Harold Shipman's Jewish background wasn't mentioned by the media during coverage of Shipman's murders. Ergo, Jews are in control. That either (a) Shipman didn't have a Jewish background or (b) he did but the media rightly dismissed it as irrelevant, is not entertained. For Abu Hamza al-Masri and his namesake on this mailing list, there's no such thing as editorial judgment. There are only Jewish conspiracies.
Ahh, but, as someone pointed out in another thread, using editorial judgment is tantamount to letting the Chinese dictate to us what we must publish. Are you going to let the Commies win, Sarah? That's not like you at all!
(I figure I'm allowed at least one troll post, since so many other posters have taken liberties ...)
Mark Gallagher wrote: <snip>
(I figure I'm allowed at least one troll post, since so many other posters have taken liberties ...)
You are, but you're not meant to tell us when you do it...
G'day Alphax,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip>
(I figure I'm allowed at least one troll post, since so many other posters have taken liberties ...)
You are, but you're not meant to tell us when you do it...
Oh, *damn*. I knew there was a reason Wikipedia Review wouldn't have me ...
Ray Saintonge wrote:
abu hamza wrote:
well lets get ther record straight. The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first time). I didn't add it. It was then removed repeatedly. the few references that are available (not usable in wikipedia) such as letters to newspapers on websites ( i have given the link here already) state he was jewish as his mother was a jewish asylum seeker. Whether it should be included on his page is debatable, because you would then have to go through all the pages where criminal and muslim are put together and ban the editor of that page indefinately.
Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an indefinate ban???
The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones obsession with taking it out.
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
Don't we usually mention people's religion in their biography if it's known and sourceable (along with race/ethnicity, nationality, place of birth, etc.)?
-Mark
On May 24, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Delirium wrote:
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
Don't we usually mention people's religion in their biography if it's known and sourceable (along with race/ethnicity, nationality, place of birth, etc.)?
Yup, but it wasn't sourceable.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 24, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Delirium wrote:
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?
Don't we usually mention people's religion in their biography if it's known and sourceable (along with race/ethnicity, nationality, place of birth, etc.)?
Yup, but it wasn't sourceable.
That makes things easy then. We don't have to argue about whether a fact is "relevant or important" when we don't even know it to be true; just remove it (or move it to the talk page) pending someone finding a source.
-Mark
On May 24, 2006, at 12:21 AM, abu hamza wrote:
well lets get ther record straight. The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first time). I didn't add it. It was then removed repeatedly.
Usually, one is (a) either supposed to get the hint and stop adding it back in, or (b) attempt to discuss the issue instead if just revert warring over it.
the few references that are available (not usable in wikipedia) such as letters to newspapers on websites ( i have given the link here already) state he was jewish as his mother was a jewish asylum seeker.
If the only references available aren't usable in Wikipedia, then the information in question is not verifiable and should not be included in Wikipedia.
Whether it should be included on his page is debatable, because you would then have to go through all the pages where criminal and muslim are put together and ban the editor of that page indefinately.
No, not at all. First off, if you look at pages like [[John Allen Muhammed]], there's nothing in the lead paragraph (which is where you kept putting it in the Shipman article) indicating that he is Muslim. Secondly, it is a verifiable fact that John Muhammed is Muslim. It is not verifiable fact that Harold Shipman is Jewish or is of Jewish ancestry.
Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an indefinate ban???
Wikipedia is not a corporate bureaucracy operating solely by written procedures and policies. There's a consensus of administrators to block your account indefinitely. That's enough.
The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones obsession with taking it out.
It takes two to edit war. Besides, there's a consensus between multiple parties to take it out. You're the only one obsessed with keeping it in.
On 5/24/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Usually, one is (a) either supposed to get the hint and stop adding it back in, or (b) attempt to discuss the issue instead if just revert warring over it.
I sort of think we're losing sight of the fact that he had less than 50 edits total. Basically, what it comes down to is, is he willing to accept that he violated our code of behaviour (whether or not he knew about it), and is he willing to totally change his way of editing.
Abu, don't even think about arguing that you did nothing wrong - editing articles in the way you did is totally unacceptable to WIkipedia. Your only defence here is ignorance and pleading remorse, and promising never to do it again.
The Oracle has spoken.
Steve
Abu, don't even think about arguing that you did nothing wrong - editing articles in the way you did is totally unacceptable to WIkipedia. Your only defence here is ignorance and pleading remorse, and promising never to do it again.
I agree. Why don't you just apologise and agree to mend your ways? You're only wasting time by trying to justify those edits.
of course i am happy to admit i am going to mend my ways . I have lot a lot about wikipedia policies, and the way things are done, since then. I was only editing for 3 days before i was banned indefinately, and had no clue about NPOV, WP:V, blocking, 3RR, sock puppetry etc
From: "Prasad J" prasad59@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] for slimline and the reference to harold shipman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 22:41:40 +0530
Abu, don't even think about arguing that you did nothing wrong - editing articles in the way you did is totally unacceptable to WIkipedia. Your
only
defence here is ignorance and pleading remorse, and promising never to
do it
again.
I agree. Why don't you just apologise and agree to mend your ways? You're only wasting time by trying to justify those edits. _______________________________________________ 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 5/24/06, abu hamza abuhamza1970@hotmail.com wrote:
It was then removed repeatedly.
Which should tell you something. When multiple editors end up reverting you about 8 times, you should probably stop trying to re-insert the information and instead discuss it on the talk page, seeking consensus.
Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an indefinate ban???
The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones obsession with taking it out.
Um, actually the former is really what is an issue here. It was not one person who kept removing it, but many. The issue here IS your attempt to insert something which only you seemed to support, and as such it is up to you to seek consensus to add it, not the other way around.
There is plenty of precedent for banning people who continue to attempt to insert POV into articles against the will of other editors. The time to debate the content-aspect of the issue was before you keep re-inserting it. At this point, as a behavior issue, it is pretty clear to me that you were in the wrong.
FF
On 5/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad.
Can you clarify: when you say "determination" do you mean "he was determined to do this" or "he is determined to do this". If he overstepped the mark and got hit for 3RR, that's one thing. If you think he's going to do the same thing to the same article, that's another.
We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the
African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the first sentence as a "convicted felon,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&... and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares
Useless? Nah, no reason they couldn't sort stubs, fight vandalism or work on Pokemon articles. Has anyone seriously made a push for Mediawiki supporting article-level bans? As awful as it sounds, it would actually be useful for us to tag articles [[Black people]] and blocking certain people from editing such articles.
if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be
Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic or Judaism fascist.
If that's their *only* goal at Wikipedia, that's one thing. If they just happen to strongly believe that and attempt to "correct" these articles when they come across them, well, they need guidance.
That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a
Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
Also from looking at his contributions, virtually every single one was reverted. Useless indeed.
Steve
On 5/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad.
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now? An indefinite ban for that editor maybe? Why is it ok to write that his mother was a Cuban immigrant, but it is not ok to write that Harold Shipman's mother was a Jewish immigrant?
on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
Have you read his talk page: "I am more than happy to go through the official wikipedia mechanism for resolving disputes."
I feel this way as well. So far his behavior on the mailing list has been quite disappointing however. I'm not holding out much hope for the possibility of reform, but he deserves his fair shot anyway.
Ryan, why don't you take the matter to ANI or RfAr? Perhaps some sort of probationary mentorship can be worked out? I feel that keeping Abu off Jewish-related articles would solve this problem, taking into account the fact that this user has not been given any chance to reform. Please assume good faith.
Björn Lindqvist wrote:
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now? An indefinite ban for that editor maybe? Why is it ok to write that his mother was a Cuban immigrant, but it is not ok to write that Harold Shipman's mother was a Jewish immigrant?
Because that information is contained in a paragraph about his early life, not in the lede...
HTH HAND
On 5/24/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Björn Lindqvist wrote:
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now?
Because that information is contained in a paragraph about his early life, not in the lede...
It's not only not in the intro, it's arguably relevant, because I assume the point of the way the early life section is written is to emphasize that he was born into poverty to a 15-year-old girl, and may therefore have had an unstable start in life. That the family were poor immigrants is therefore not an irrelevance. I'd have no objection to including in the [[Harold Shipman]] early life section that he was Jewish if it could be sourced and if it was in any way relevant. But there would still be no need for it in the first sentence. It's particularly jarring when writing about a British person, because the British don't as a rule identify themselves as "Jewish British," in the way an American might say Jewish American, and as Abu Hamza is based in the UK, he certainly knows that.
Sarah
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now?
Because that information is contained in a paragraph about his early life, not in the lede...
It's not only not in the intro, it's arguably relevant, because I assume the point of the way the early life section is written is to emphasize that he was born into poverty to a 15-year-old girl, and may therefore have had an unstable start in life. That the family were poor immigrants is therefore not an irrelevance. I'd have no objection
So what you are claiming is that Adolfo Constanzo's poor immigrant family is relevant TO HIS CRIMES? That is nothing short of racism.
No one has, so far, claimed that Harold Shipman's possible Jewish refugee background is in any way relevant to his crimes. Anyone doing so would be rightly called an anti-Semite. What people have claimed is that Harold Shipmans family background is an interesting tidbit of knowledge, which I agree with. What I have showed is that it is not taboo for articles about (non-Jewish) serial killers to include information about their family background.
to including in the [[Harold Shipman]] early life section that he was Jewish if it could be sourced and if it was in any way relevant. But there would still be no need for it in the first sentence. It's
In the early life section of the Adolfo Constanzo article it says:
"... His mother, Delia Aurora Gonzalez del Valle, was a widowed Cuban immigrant."
With Saladin1970's last edit to Harold Shipman, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53826041&a..., the early life section said:
"... His mother, Vera, died in 1963 from [[lung cancer]], when he was 17.She came to Britain as a Jewish Asylum Seeker."
So you are wrong, with Saladin1970's last few edits, it was not stated in the first sentence, it was stated in the "early life" section. Exactly like it is written in the Adolfo Constanzo article.
It is very telling of your attitude that you, on one hand, defends the mention of ethnicity in the Adolfo Constanzo article and on the other says it cannot be mentioned in the Harold Shipman article and then also using that to accuse Saladin1970 of anti-Semitism.
On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
So what you are claiming is that Adolfo Constanzo's poor immigrant family is relevant TO HIS CRIMES? That is nothing short of racism.
Don't be disingenuous. It may definitely be relevant to Constanzo's personality and sense of self (how could it not be?) that he was born to a 15-year-old girl from a poor immigrant family and that his other two siblings each had different fathers. This is not a good start in life, by any standard.
If you can show me something similar about the effect on his life of Shipman's alleged Jewish background (assuming you can find a source showing he had one), I'll go and add it myself.
In the early life section of the Adolfo Constanzo article it says:
"... His mother, Delia Aurora Gonzalez del Valle, was a widowed Cuban immigrant."
With Saladin1970's last edit to Harold Shipman, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53826041&a..., the early life section said:
"... His mother, Vera, died in 1963 from [[lung cancer]], when he was 17.She came to Britain as a Jewish Asylum Seeker."
Abu Hamza ended up adding it to the early life section, but started by several times trying to add it to the very first sentence, and with no source. I repeat: with no source. We stlll have no idea whether it's true, never mind relevant.
Sarah
On 5/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
So what you are claiming is that Adolfo Constanzo's poor immigrant family is relevant TO HIS CRIMES? That is nothing short of racism.
Don't be disingenuous.
Indeed. That was a disingenuous and dishonest accusation, and, frankly, typical trolling from this "contributor". Now that we have Jimbo's fiat on this, perhaps the list mods could get involved in fixing this as well.
Jay.
On 5/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
So what you are claiming is that Adolfo Constanzo's poor immigrant family is relevant TO HIS CRIMES? That is nothing short of racism.
Don't be disingenuous.
Indeed. That was a disingenuous and dishonest accusation, and, frankly, typical trolling from this "contributor". Now that we have Jimbo's fiat on this, perhaps the list mods could get involved in fixing this as well.
Before "the list mods" (including me) do anything, they'd probably like to know exactly what they're doing (putting someone on moderation), why they're doing it, and have consensus that this is a desirable thing to do - probably by people emailing wikien-l-owner@wikipedia.org . The other thing to remember is that with moderation (as opposed to banning), we have to make a decision every mail that comes through, and it's quite difficult to say when a message is "trolling" or not. It would be easier to enforce a blanket rule like "no one may accuse each other of racism", for example.
It is probably better that people simply stop replying to trolls, or that you find other ways of controlling them.
Also, as I understood it, we only had Jimbo's support to ban Peter Mackay, which turned out to be unnecessary anyway.
Steve
On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
So what you are claiming is that Adolfo Constanzo's poor immigrant family is relevant TO HIS CRIMES? That is nothing short of racism.
No one has, so far, claimed that Harold Shipman's possible Jewish refugee background is in any way relevant to his crimes. Anyone doing so would be rightly called an anti-Semite. What people have claimed is that Harold Shipmans family background is an interesting tidbit of knowledge, which I agree with. What I have showed is that it is not taboo for articles about (non-Jewish) serial killers to include information about their family background.
It seems fairly clear to me that there is some inconsistency applied to issues such as these on Wikipedia. 1) For "bad" people, Jewishness must be proven beyond all doubt, and must not go in the lead. I couldn't actually find any examples of Jewish criminals - there doesn't seem to be a "Category:Jewish criminals" for instance. 2) For "good" people, Jewishness must merely be asserted, and should be applied as a category. Occasionally it goes in the lead ([[John von Neumann]]), other times as "born into a Jewish family" ([[Alan Greenspan]]), other times it's not even mentioned except for the category. There are around 15 "Jewish Xs" categories, some with subcategories like Jewish-American scientists.
I don't want to speculate on why this is the case, and I certainly don't want to imply that it only applies to Judaism. At a quick glance, Christian and Muslim scientist categories exist, but with somewhat poorer organisation (Egyptian scientists is a subcat of Muslim scientists, for example).
However, I do think there is something inherently dodgy about allowing the categorisation of "good" people by religion with no sources, but not "bad" people. If a serial killer's religion is "irrelevant", I don't see why the same should not be said for a nobel prize winning scientist.
Steve
On May 24, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
It seems fairly clear to me that there is some inconsistency applied to issues such as these on Wikipedia.
- For "bad" people, Jewishness must be proven beyond all doubt,
and must not go in the lead. I couldn't actually find any examples of Jewish criminals - there doesn't seem to be a "Category:Jewish criminals" for instance. 2) For "good" people, Jewishness must merely be asserted, and should be applied as a category. Occasionally it goes in the lead ([[John von Neumann]]), other times as "born into a Jewish family" ([[Alan Greenspan]]), other times it's not even mentioned except for the category. There are around 15 "Jewish Xs" categories, some with subcategories like Jewish-American scientists.
Hey, check out our verifiability policy. If we can't verify that someone is Jewish or comes from a Jewish family, it shouldn't be in the article either way.
That said, mentioning that a famous scientist or economist is Jewish isn't offensive, so it's not enforced as strongly there for understandable reasons.
On 5/24/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Hey, check out our verifiability policy. If we can't verify that someone is Jewish or comes from a Jewish family, it shouldn't be in the article either way.
That said, mentioning that a famous scientist or economist is Jewish isn't offensive, so it's not enforced as strongly there for understandable reasons.
Yeah, but it's funny - it's "offensive" (presumably to Jewish people) but it's not libellous. Saying that a murderer is Jewish isn't actually saying anything bad about the murderer. It's a bit of a weird one, really.
Steve
On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote: .
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now? An indefinite ban for that editor maybe? Why is it ok to write that his mother was a Cuban immigrant, but it is not ok to write that Harold Shipman's mother was a Jewish immigrant?
I'm astonished not that people are willing to defend the poster Abu Hamza (nothing wrong with that of course), but that they are insisting on ripping single offences free from their context and then saying "Hey, this looks perfectly innocent." No, there's nothing wrong with someone making a good faith, sourced edit to Harold Shipman indicating his religious background. "Hey, Abu Hamza is the equivalent of Johnny Smith!" Sure, and my real name might be Davey Duke too, but we don't have to be purposefully naive when we look at these issues. In isolation, we can make everything he did look perfectly innocent, but when a user takes the screen name of a man (quoting WP) convicted of "racial hatred and incitement to murder", shares the same obsession with Harold Shipman's supposed Jewish background as the convicted Hamza, inserts text dumps from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" into articles and claims he's merely "quoting the Talmud", and calls respected editors Zionists in a way that's clearly intended as a slur, well, you don't need a weatherman to know which way this wind is blowing. This clearly adds up to a pattern of behavior that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and you aren't doing him any favors by defending his behavior. That will just encourage him to perpetuate this patten of offenses and he will get banned again or his ban will just never be permanently lifted. If you really want to stick up for this guy, try to get him to improve his behavior, don't try to rationalize it for him.
I'm astonished not that people are willing to defend the poster Abu Hamza (nothing wrong with that of course), but that they are insisting on ripping single offences free from their context and then saying
Conversely, I'm astonished that people are willing to accuse the poster Abu Hamza when they haven't even gotten the basic facts straight.
his religious background. "Hey, Abu Hamza is the equivalent of Johnny Smith!" Sure, and my real name might be Davey Duke too, but we don't have to be purposefully naive when we look at these issues. In isolation, we can make everything he did look perfectly innocent, but when a user takes the screen name of a man (quoting WP) convicted of "racial hatred and incitement to murder", shares the same obsession
False. The poster abuhamza used the screen name Saladin1970. I don't understand how is email address is in any way relevant. Most people here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone had accused him for it.
with Harold Shipman's supposed Jewish background as the convicted Hamza, inserts text dumps from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" into articles and claims he's merely "quoting the Talmud", and calls respected editors Zionists in a way that's clearly intended as a slur,
Calling editors Zionists is no good. Btw, I believe the extract from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" was only inserted in one article, [[Alan Hart]].
well, you don't need a weatherman to know which way this wind is blowing. This clearly adds up to a pattern of behavior that is
It is easy to build a castle of air. Everyone can do that, but when you analyze each part of it you see that it is nothing more than a castle of air. It is false that abuhamza didn't do any useful edits, he did. It is false that his screen name was Abu Hamza, it was Saladin1970.
just never be permanently lifted. If you really want to stick up for this guy, try to get him to improve his behavior, don't try to rationalize it for him.
The user is indefinitely banned, there is no way for him to improve his behaviour anyway.
On 5/26/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
False. The poster abuhamza used the screen name Saladin1970. I don't understand how is email address is in any way relevant. Most people here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone had accused him for it.
He used the screen name Abu Hamza here on the list. He used the Wikipedia username of User:Saladin1970. Instead of assuming I don't have "my facts straight", you might have considered that I was using different terminology than that which you might choose to employ. His choice of screen name/email name/whatever is entirely relevant, as it appears to indicate he is a racial POV warrior, just as someone who might choose the email name of David Duke would be a racial POV warrior. Just because some people might not know who David Duke is doesn't make any difference.
Calling editors Zionists is no good. Btw, I believe the extract from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" was only inserted in one article, [[Alan Hart]].
Well that makes it okay, then.
The user is indefinitely banned, there is no way for him to improve his behaviour anyway.
Yes, but he could easily be unbanned, and is posting on the list campaigning for someone to do so. Hence this discussion.
On 5/26/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/26/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
False. The poster abuhamza used the screen name Saladin1970. I don't understand how is email address is in any way relevant. Most people here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone had accused him for it.
He used the screen name Abu Hamza here on the list. He used the Wikipedia username of User:Saladin1970. Instead of assuming I don't have "my facts straight", you might have considered that I was using different terminology than that which you might choose to employ. His
Yes. But please use the more exact term "email address," for his email address. Screen name is a very ambiguous term in this context.
choice of screen name/email name/whatever is entirely relevant, as it appears to indicate he is a racial POV warrior, just as someone who might choose the email name of David Duke would be a racial POV warrior. Just because some people might not know who David Duke is doesn't make any difference.
Since you know that his Wikipedia user name was Saladin1970, and you probably also know that he didn't begin posting on this mailing list before he was indefinitely banned, then you should be able to conclude that his email address had nothing, whatsoever, to do with his indefinite ban.
Also, you are comparing David Duke, which I assume is a well known racist in the US, to a Muslim clerk, who, in an international context, is definitely not well known. Saying that "some people might not know who Abu Hamza is," is an understatement. You can also take a look at the article about [[Abu Hamza]], and maybe you will understand why I find it hard that anyone would want to impersonate or idolize that guy. There are many way "cooler" al-Qaeida supporters out there.
Apply Occam's Razor, is it more believable that Saladin1970's real name is Abu Hamza, or is it more believable that he choose the address abuhamza1970@hotmail.com to show his support for the real Abu Hamza? First, recall that "abu" is Arabic and means father of, so every father who has a child named Hamza would be an "Abu Hamza." Second, recall that the guy himself has explained that and has claimed that Abu Hamza is his real name. Third:
Quote Dan Rosenthal: "n my time spent in the middle east, I've met a large number of men with the nickname Abu Hamza. I'm no Arabic naming expert, but from what I understand, Abu _________ is a common nickname scheme over there. I wouldn't be surprised to find multiple Abu Hamzas in the arabic wikipedia community. Coincidence in name is just that: coincidence, AFAICT"
And last, even *if* the guy choose the email address abuhamza1970@hotmail.com because he likes Abu Hamza, that is no reason for indefinitely banning him - we allow people who like al-Qaeida to contribute.
Calling editors Zionists is no good. Btw, I believe the extract from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" was only inserted in one article, [[Alan Hart]].
Well that makes it okay, then.
Yeah, I assume so. Alan Hart is the author of Zionism The Real Enemy of Jews. The quote was 4-5 paragraphs which is to much for Wikipedia articles. One or two paragraphs would have been appropriate. It is a common mistake many new to Wikipedia do.
The user is indefinitely banned, there is no way for him to improve his behaviour anyway.
Yes, but he could easily be unbanned, and is posting on the list campaigning for someone to do so. Hence this discussion.
So before you try to stick up for the guy by helping him improve his behaviour, you have to get him unbanned. Don't you agree? Or are you saying that his behaviour on this mailing list is particularly bad?
On Fri, 26 May 2006 14:58:41 +0200, you wrote:
Most people here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone had accused him for it.
You have a citation to back that claim? I'm sure you wouldn't make bold assertions without getting the basic facts straight, right?
Guy (JzG)
This case is under arbitration. Please put evidence on the evidence page of the arbitration case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_...
Some arbitrators may not read this mailing list.
(Yes, I'm being a good clerk today)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 14:58:41 +0200, you wrote:
Most people here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone had accused him for it.
You have a citation to back that claim? I'm sure you wouldn't make bold assertions without getting the basic facts straight, right?
For what it's worth, I certainly didn't. Actually, I still don't know much about him, since I haven't felt any particular urge to check out his article, but from what I gather of the references made here, the guy seems to be only marginally notable outside the UK.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ilmari Karonen stated for the record:
For what it's worth, I certainly didn't. Actually, I still don't know much about him, since I haven't felt any particular urge to check out his article, but from what I gather of the references made here, the guy seems to be only marginally notable outside the UK.
I can assure you that he's more than "marginally notable" here, well outside the UK.
- -- Sean Barrett | Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben? sean@epoptic.com | --Frederick the Great, Kolin, 18 June 1757
On May 24, 2006, at 4:10 AM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad.
Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are the person who added information about this American born serial killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as Saladin1970 now? An indefinite ban for that editor maybe? Why is it ok to write that his mother was a Cuban immigrant, but it is not ok to write that Harold Shipman's mother was a Jewish immigrant?
It's not verifiable that Shipman's mother was Jewish?
Sarah wrote:
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad.
It's clear from what may people have said that that he should consent not to edit the Shipman article.
We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the first sentence as a "convicted felon," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&... and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic or Judaism fascist.
I thought we were talking about ONE person here. These wild generalizations say more about you than about him.
That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so on.
Some of this is understandable for a newbie. I'm sure that several have now made this point. What he does with the information in the furture is more important.that what he did as an ignorant newbie.
But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
That's seems to be a personal and entirely subjective determination on your part.