After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga, and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of her, we are now at a last resort stage.
To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and to repeat her strange historical claims.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this decision.
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in 3 months time.
--Jimbo
On 09-09-2002, Jimmy Wales wrote thusly :
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months. After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement. I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever. I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga, and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of her, we are now at a last resort stage. To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and to repeat her strange historical claims. In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this decision. Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in 3 months time.
Decision hard to take and uneasy one but the right one IMO.
Is she also banned from the German Wikipedia ?
Regards, kpjas.
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
Decision hard to take and uneasy one but the right one IMO.
Is she also banned from the German Wikipedia ?
Not physically, but in principle, yes. If someone with sysop status there wants to do that for me, I'll be glad of it. If no one there cares enough to do it, then there's no need. :-)
I can only concur. It is a pity that we did not grasp this particular nettle sooner.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" kpj@kki.net.pl To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
On 09-09-2002, Jimmy Wales wrote thusly :
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months. After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement. I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever. I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga, and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of her, we are now at a last resort stage. To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and to repeat her strange historical claims. In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this decision. Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in 3 months time.
Decision hard to take and uneasy one but the right one IMO.
Is she also banned from the German Wikipedia ?
Regards, kpjas. [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?
3 months is too long to ban people anyway. Try 2 days first, then a week, then twice that.
As an European this reminds me of communism and nazisme.
Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of here peers?
How can new Wikipedia-aspirant writers expect to be treated fairly whenever they will try to introduce a new aspect in say 20 years when you are all over 40?
Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled more carefully.
What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although the vast majority will be.
Not me.
Such is the nature of consensus.
The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.
I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your friends?
I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent,
So don't do it.
which is why I have waited so long to take action in this case.
Ok, so because you waited so long, it makes it right? And from which did you ban here exactly? And why?
Banning should always be a "last resort".
Yes. Like the death penalty.
And we don't like that in Europe.
After more than a year of trying to work with Helga, and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of her,
So we lost one contributor, who may have had other things to do (like me), and Helga is to blame!
Conflicts like this with Helga motivate me to stay. Like my heroes Caesar, Machiavelli etc. I like conflict.
we are now at a last resort stage.
No, don't over dramatize matters. Buy I good 3D-video-card and play games like 'Gore', Unreal etc. to relax.
To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to resolve differences.
Strangeligy enough you seem to reverse the classical pattern of man versus woman.
Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about her posting style
Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?
How un-in-touch-with reality are you?
in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and to repeat her strange historical claims.
You should distinguish between asocial behaviour and between having the 'wrong ideas'.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this decision.
And since this was done in public, I do this in public.
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
but there is really no appeal possible at this point.
Why not? Ban me too!
Freedom of speech is not for the easy cases, but for the cases that you'd like to censor.
The ban is not permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in 3 months time.
Three months is like a life sentence for freedom of speech.
Bah, Jaap
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of here peers?
Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled more carefully.
What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
You have obviously not been following the discussion on this matter at all. This is just not what happened at all. You're welcome to check the archives for this mailing list if you're in doubt.
-- Daniel
At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of here peers?
I would say her peers.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
What crap!
Bah, Jaap
Fred
Jaap,
There is a long and tedious history to this which your posting plainly reveals your are unaware of.
I am certainly no advocate of blanket bans etc, however this is one which is seriously belated, and our failure to act and remove the troubled and troublesome Ms Hecht has severely set back work on several key areas of historical work. Every effort has been made to accommodate her within the programme and she has studiously and assiduously refused to comply with even simple requests to conform with good or even acceptable practice.
The corollary of not banning the likes of Ms Hecht is that the historical effort has to date lost two highly valued and valuable contributors: how many more is her infantile and inflammatory gibberish to alienate before we act? This is overdue and not precipitate action.
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van Ganswijk" ganswijk@xs4all.nl To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned
At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?
3 months is too long to ban people anyway. Try 2 days first, then a week, then twice that.
As an European this reminds me of communism and nazisme.
Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of here peers?
How can new Wikipedia-aspirant writers expect to be treated fairly whenever they will try to introduce a new aspect in say 20 years when you are all over 40?
Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled more carefully.
What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although the vast majority will be.
Not me.
Such is the nature of consensus.
The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.
I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your friends?
I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent,
So don't do it.
which is why I have waited so long to take action in this case.
Ok, so because you waited so long, it makes it right? And from which did you ban here exactly? And why?
Banning should always be a "last resort".
Yes. Like the death penalty.
And we don't like that in Europe.
After more than a year of trying to work with Helga, and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of her,
So we lost one contributor, who may have had other things to do (like me), and Helga is to blame!
Conflicts like this with Helga motivate me to stay. Like my heroes Caesar, Machiavelli etc. I like conflict.
we are now at a last resort stage.
No, don't over dramatize matters. Buy I good 3D-video-card and play games like 'Gore', Unreal etc. to relax.
To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to resolve differences.
Strangeligy enough you seem to reverse the classical pattern of man versus woman.
Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about her posting style
Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?
How un-in-touch-with reality are you?
in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and to repeat her strange historical claims.
You should distinguish between asocial behaviour and between having the 'wrong ideas'.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this decision.
And since this was done in public, I do this in public.
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
but there is really no appeal possible at this point.
Why not? Ban me too!
Freedom of speech is not for the easy cases, but for the cases that you'd like to censor.
The ban is not permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in 3 months time.
Three months is like a life sentence for freedom of speech.
Bah, Jaap
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
[...]
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety of people.
*laugh*
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
[...]
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety of people.
*laugh*
Jaap has made an assumption that Helga is a blond and blue-eyed Teutonic goddess that would attract such a conquest. Others of us might imagine her as a dried and shrivelled crone, entirely unsuitable for such purposes,.and who may even have Carroll Reece personally.
It's funny how we imagine people to look like base on a few net postings.
Eclecticology
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
[...]
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety of people.
*laugh*
Jaap has made an assumption that Helga is a blond and blue-eyed Teutonic goddess that would attract such a conquest. Others of us might imagine her as a dried and shrivelled crone, entirely unsuitable for such purposes,.and who may even have Carroll Reece personally.
It's funny how we imagine people to look like base on a few net postings.
Keep in mind that the real Helga is still here, reading what you post.
Fred
Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip>
Jaap has made an assumption that Helga is a blond and blue-eyed Teutonic goddess that would attract such a conquest. Others of us might imagine her as a dried and shrivelled crone, entirely unsuitable for such purposes,.and who may even have Carroll Reece personally.
It's funny how we imagine people to look like base on a few net postings.
Eclecticology
I agree with Jaap.
Replace "sex" with "impose personal/community moral views upon" and he expresses my view of what is occurring adequately.
Mike Irwin
At 03:35 AM 10/09/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
[...]
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Boy, my dream of empowering people to build a great free encyclopedia for the benefit of all humankind sure does introduce me to a variety of people.
I had no idea that this was one of the perks of running Wikipedia. I thought you were just in this for the noble ideal of expanding human knowledge and freedom and such.
Hm... does it work for people who run mirrors too? I think I can get some web space...
:)
On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 18:01, Bryan Derksen wrote:
I had no idea that this was one of the perks of running Wikipedia. I thought you were just in this for the noble ideal of expanding human knowledge and freedom and such.
Hm... does it work for people who run mirrors too? I think I can get some web space...
I just assumed it was some fiendishly clever world domination plot, and I could get cut in at the end and get, I dunno, maybe a fiefdom of Hawaii or something. Please don't tell me i'm wrong!
Some clarifications...
I got two personal reactions and I read all the comments.
At 2002-09-09 22:19 +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?
Jimmy Wales explained to me that she was banned from all Wikipedia and therefore not from this list.
What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
Perhaps I overreacted a bit, but I was thinking about cases where people were removed from mailing lists in days when the mailing list was the medium and the meta medium or a case of a political debating mailing list where people objected to a mailing list becoming linked to a public and archieved newsgroup and someone changing that after only a very short period in which the people who were against it didn't have enough time to discuss it and after the list was made public they didn't want to/couldn't discuss it in public anymore. There was even a vote, but it turned out to be handled very badly.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Sure, and some sex on the side.
Of course I didn't mean sex literally her, as at least one other person understood. Most of you Americans are so tight-assed about sex.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although the vast majority will be.
Not me.
By the way, I'm not against banning Helga if she causes the trouble that she seems to do. I just object to aspects of Jimmy's email about it and I have doubts about the procedure and about the period of banning. Personally I saw that fact that Helga joined this mailing list as a very good sign. And over time I'm sure she will learn how to quote correctly... ;-)
And she responded very reasonably to various remarks by others.
I have also looked at some of here articles among one in German and didn't find much bias in it.
She seems indeed to be in denial of the holocaust as most Germans and German media were during several decades after the war (and perhaps still), at least they didn't report about what actually happened during the war. We can receive German television here in the Netherlands and it's amazing how 'closed' the German media still are in some regards.
By the way, the first time I encountered 'revisionism' around 1996, I was also puzzled for a while. Was it really a big lie that our elders had tought us about the war? As a scientifically trained professional I didn't immediately believe the new 'evidence' of course, but what struck me most was that I had never seen foto's or film's about actual gas chambers. After focussing on this some more I did find foto's etc. the fact that there is relatively little material available is probably due to the fact that most of the extermination camps were located to the east of Germany and they were liberated by the Soviets who didn't have much camera's and film to spare at that time.
As regards an international jewish organization declaring war on Germany: The first time I heard about this was from revisionist sites. I never heard about this from all the stories told by older family members, but of course it may have been true and for the time being I assume it's true, but it doesn't allow a government to take the measures against jews as the German government took.
Of course a government has to be careful. The USA put all Japanese inhabitants in camps in world war 2 and rightfully so. You don't want to be backstabbed when trying to win a war. After the terror attack of september 11'th last year a lot of muslims were arrested in the USA without proper legal reasons, but these things are justified by the unclear situation I think.
Such is the nature of consensus.
The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.
The problem with consensus which isn't properly measured is that the person 'measuring' the consensus may have a bias and may interpret what people say in his own subjective way.
I propose that some sort of voting mechanism is installed. Just give all people on this list an opportunity to vote.
One should write a message saying: I propose to ban person X because .... Person X can then explain him/herself and votes will be counted durign a week or so.
I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your friends?
This is the hand-on way I tried to express the above notion of 'subjective'.
Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about her posting style
Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?
I noticed that Helga didn't quote 'very efficiently' and that is often a sign that one is new to mailing lists.
I manage several mailing lists and have also followed the personal progress of people new to mailing and noticed that most of them catch-on very quickly, just by copying what they see others do.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this decision.
And since this was done in public, I do this in public.
The problem with taking discussions like these to the personal level (and I have years of experience) is that one forgets what one has said in private and what in public. The same goes for crossposting to several mailing lists by the way.
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
Again, I meant that I dislike the notion that she would have to discuss these things with you personally. You shouldn't take this as that I suggest that you were trying to extort sexual favors from Helga.
And no, I don't imagine Helga to be a blonde teutonic goddess as someone suggested. ;-) If I remember correctly Helga is already quite old.
Greetings, Jaap
PS. Would it be possible that people use their real name on this mailing list and in personal email? Please use something like I do in my 'from address'. I don't think it's civil to presend oneself as a movie with Philip Glass music in it, however good the music is. I have the CD...
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
She seems indeed to be in denial of the holocaust as most Germans and German media were during several decades after the war (and perhaps still), at least they didn't report about what actually happened during the war. We can receive German television here in the Netherlands and it's amazing how 'closed' the German media still are in some regards.
What are you talking about?
Yesterday I started translating [[Internet troll]] into German, and today I see myself replying to this provocative, undifferentiated nonsense. I'll open Abiword now and copy'n'paste a hundred times: "Don't feed ..."
Kurt
Jimmy Wales wrote:
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
Good, and it was about time, and now can we PLEASE all get back to more useful topics...
Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
Vicki
At 10:19 AM 9/9/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a period of 3 months.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
If she's here that's a fact. The arbitrary 3-month period should not be treated so significantly. What's really important is her behaviour from now forward. Dwelling on her past sins doesn't help anybody.
Eclecticology
Eclecticology wrote:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
If she's here that's a fact. The arbitrary 3-month period should not be treated so significantly. What's really important is her behaviour from now forward. Dwelling on her past sins doesn't help anybody.
There is the issue of the integrity of banning procedures. She can only have been unbanned by an administrator, and there was discussion earlier on the list that her time was about up. I suspect that somebody simply messed up the timing. If this is correct, and there was no subversion of the process, then you're right, we should concentrate on her behaviour now. But if she did an end run on the system (and Jimbo's wishes) somehow, then that shouldn't be rewarded.
-- Toby
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 11:21:29AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
Eclecticology wrote:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
If she's here that's a fact. The arbitrary 3-month period should not be treated so significantly. What's really important is her behaviour from now forward. Dwelling on her past sins doesn't help anybody.
There is the issue of the integrity of banning procedures. She can only have been unbanned by an administrator, and there was discussion earlier on the list that her time was about up. I suspect that somebody simply messed up the timing. If this is correct, and there was no subversion of the process, then you're right, we should concentrate on her behaviour now. But if she did an end run on the system (and Jimbo's wishes) somehow, then that shouldn't be rewarded.
I think Jimbo unbanned her. But I think it was a fault. Frau Jonat is doing what she's done before (List in no particular order):
* Shows disrespect against the Polish national border: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wolin&diff=452458&oldid=...
* reverting articles to a status that was considered wrong by other experts, without providing prove or arguments for her position http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Boleslaus_I_of_Poland&diff=4...
* Changing articles from NPOV http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Lithuania&diff=45...
* Articles which do not cover the subject http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Galindan_language&oldid=4560...
JeLuF
Jens Frank wrote:
I think Jimbo unbanned her. But I think it was a fault. Frau Jonat is doing what she's done before (List in no particular order):
- Shows disrespect against the Polish national border:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wolin&diff=452458&oldid=...
- reverting articles to a status that was considered
wrong by other experts, without providing prove or arguments for her position http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Boleslaus_I_of_Poland&diff=4...
- Changing articles from NPOV
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Lithuania&diff=45...
- Articles which do not cover the subject
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Galindan_language&oldid=4560...
I've reviewed these articles, and although some of the changes seem debatable, or involve exchanging one POV for another, that is nothing unusual in the thrust and parry of debate. To say that adding the single word "current" to "Polish border" is a disrespect of Polish borders makes arguments out of nothing. The addition is at worst a redundency of trivial importance.
If temporary bans are to have any value, fair-mindedness demands that when the offender returns to the community her contributions be judged with the same objectivity that would be applied to any other contributors. There is no need to look at her contributions through a microscope for every tiny point that you may find offensive. If you look hard enough you can find that in anybody's contributions.
Eclecticology
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
Helga is back on the Wikipedia (see the user talk for H. Jonat). As far as I can tell, she was banned on September 9, for three months. Have I missed an announcement, or is this return without Jimbo's knowledge/assent?
This return is without my knowledge or assent. She's supposed to talk to me first.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org