Hello, I understand user NSM88 had at one time an image of himself dressed in some kind of Nazi or neo-Nazi uniform displayed on his user page, and that it was deleted. Two issues stemming from that: deletion justification, and personal attacks by admins.
The deletion log reads:
12:06, 15 Feb 2005 Theresa knott deleted Image:Walternsm.jpg (This image will upset a number of users and lead to disruption rather than cooperation)
This bothers me. That it will "lead to disruption" is, I think, a strained justification for removing an image of someone used on their own personal page which, so far as I know contained nothing more 'graphic' than a 'Nazi uniform'.
If the justification for deleting an image is that it bore a Nazi emblem, then at least one administrator is deleting images which offend their own or other contributors' personal or political beliefs. How can that stand? If I should upload an image of myself wearing a Democratic or Republican pin, for example, would that be "disruptive"? There is no evidence that he did not act in good faith.
Looking at it further, I see personal motives for banning and personal attacks against him by an administrator.
I've blocked you for being a hateful individual. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User talk:NSM88]
Feel free to visit nsm888 on some OTHER website. Removing advertising for an offensive organisation.) [User:NSM88 edit summary, 11:23, 15 Feb 2005 Ta bu shi da yu]
Liberation from what? Liberation from having a brain? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User:NSM88 hist]
You are now only blocked for 48 hours. Don't thank me though. If I had my way, none of you people would be posting on here. But I'll be watching you. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User talk:NSM88]
Sure he has. His political views are extremely hateful. He openly proclaimed that he was a white supremecist (though under the guise of "White liberation"). If you don't like what I did, tough. I've been open about what I've done, but I don't expect you to understand. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User talk:NSM88]
Please, someone tell me this isn't acceptable behavior from administrators.
[[en:User:119]]
On Thursday 17 February 2005 11:06, Jack Lutz wrote:
Hello, I understand user NSM88 had at one time an image of himself dressed in some kind of Nazi or neo-Nazi uniform displayed on his user page, and that it was deleted. Two issues stemming from that: deletion justification, and personal attacks by admins.
The administrators were right to delete it. Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 11:06, Jack Lutz wrote:
Hello, I understand user NSM88 had at one time an image of himself dressed
in some
kind of Nazi or neo-Nazi uniform displayed on his user page, and
that it
was deleted. Two issues stemming from that: deletion justification,
and
personal attacks by admins.
The administrators were right to delete it. Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
Please note that, with rare exceptions, each contributor to this list is speaking for themselves, and not officially for Wikipedia or Wikimedia. This applies equally to NSK's comments above, and to my comments.
I take extreme exception to the statement that "Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia." In my opinion that statement is in direct contradiction to the concept of NPOV.
_Everyone_ is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia unless and until they demonstrate that they will not participate in good faith, according to the established practices and policies of the community. There are established mechanisms for determining when someone is not participating in good faith, and for restricting their participation as a result.
"Everyone" includes Neo-Nazis, no matter how much we may abhor their beliefs.
I do not think that the photo should have been removed based solely on the presence of Nazi symbols, especially since it was on the user's page.
However, many people in the US (like me) have a different attitude about Nazi symbols that do many people in Europe. The United States did not so directly suffer from Hitler and the Nazi's as Europe did. I think it's almost impossible for someone like me to fully appreciate their views.
Let me make this plain: I hate Neo-Nazi beliefs. However, I urge that we Wikipedians treat Neo-Nazi's no differently than we treat other contributors whose beliefs differ from our own. Certainly remove POV from articles. Certainly hold them accountable to properly documented facts. Make sure that they are participating in good faith. But unless and until they prove themselves unable to participate in good faith, we should not take any action against them.
-Rich Holton en.Wikipedia:User:Rholton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Rich Holton said:
I take extreme exception to the statement that "Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia." In my opinion that statement is in direct contradiction to the concept of NPOV.
Agreed. Neo-nazis are not incapable of making useful NPOV edits, in my experience, and their perspective makes them more likely to spot some forms of POV that might escape the radar of other editors. They can also do useful research, as that chap did on the article about the New Zealand NF rally. The result of their contribution would be higher quality encyclopedic content, and their views are hardly likely to predominate and overbalance articles in the prevailing climate of Wikipedia. As with all editors with a mission, their edits should be, and almost certainly will, be watched more closely than others. Recent experience has shown us that counter-activism can also be a problem--this isn't new, I saw a similar problem on Usenet nearly ten years ago, but Wikipedia has the editorial control structures to alleviate the effect of such tit-for-tat.
I don't like "hear, hear" and "me too" comments, but I am doing it to this mail of Rich Holton's. I find the messages in this thread highly disturbing. However little I like neonazi's, I very much defend their right to edit Wikipedia, as long as they keep to NPOV just like any other contributor.
As I have said in a previous mail, what matters is not what POV an editor is writing from, but the extent to which that POV interferes with their willingness and capability to write NPOV on the Wikipedia.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:58:09 -0800 (PST), Rich Holton rich_holton@yahoo.com wrote:
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 11:06, Jack Lutz wrote:
Hello, I understand user NSM88 had at one time an image of himself dressed
in some
kind of Nazi or neo-Nazi uniform displayed on his user page, and
that it
was deleted. Two issues stemming from that: deletion justification,
and
personal attacks by admins.
The administrators were right to delete it. Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
Please note that, with rare exceptions, each contributor to this list is speaking for themselves, and not officially for Wikipedia or Wikimedia. This applies equally to NSK's comments above, and to my comments.
I take extreme exception to the statement that "Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia." In my opinion that statement is in direct contradiction to the concept of NPOV.
_Everyone_ is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia unless and until they demonstrate that they will not participate in good faith, according to the established practices and policies of the community. There are established mechanisms for determining when someone is not participating in good faith, and for restricting their participation as a result.
"Everyone" includes Neo-Nazis, no matter how much we may abhor their beliefs.
I do not think that the photo should have been removed based solely on the presence of Nazi symbols, especially since it was on the user's page.
However, many people in the US (like me) have a different attitude about Nazi symbols that do many people in Europe. The United States did not so directly suffer from Hitler and the Nazi's as Europe did. I think it's almost impossible for someone like me to fully appreciate their views.
Let me make this plain: I hate Neo-Nazi beliefs. However, I urge that we Wikipedians treat Neo-Nazi's no differently than we treat other contributors whose beliefs differ from our own. Certainly remove POV from articles. Certainly hold them accountable to properly documented facts. Make sure that they are participating in good faith. But unless and until they prove themselves unable to participate in good faith, we should not take any action against them.
-Rich Holton en.Wikipedia:User:Rholton
NSK wrote:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 11:06, Jack Lutz wrote:
Hello, I understand user NSM88 had at one time an image of himself dressed in some kind of Nazi or neo-Nazi uniform displayed on his user page, and that it was deleted. Two issues stemming from that: deletion justification, and personal attacks by admins.
The administrators were right to delete it. Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
A distinction still needs to be made between what is in an article, and what is in a user page. Neo-Nazi propaganda obviously has no role in most articles. If someone feels that he best describes himself by appearing in a Neo-Nazi uniform he succeeds in telling a lot about himself. There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
. There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Godwin Point (i.e. baselessly accusing people of emulating nazi/fascist behavior).
Perhaps we should concentrate on some facts: namely, that person was editing articles related to Jews and heavily pushing certain very specific points of views (holocaust denial) everywhere (even though these points of views were already discussed in relevant pages), including in headlines.
In short, the user was very very probably a troll intent on disrupting Wikipedia.
David Monniaux wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
. There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Godwin Point (i.e. baselessly accusing people of emulating nazi/fascist behavior).
Perhaps we should concentrate on some facts: namely, that person was editing articles related to Jews and heavily pushing certain very specific points of views (holocaust denial) everywhere (even though these points of views were already discussed in relevant pages), including in headlines.
In short, the user was very very probably a troll intent on disrupting Wikipedia.
If you had chosen to look at my whole post rather than just the point that amuses you you would have seen that my reference was ONLY to the picture on his user page. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the POVs that he expressed on other articles because I have no intention of reviewing them, so I didn't. Nor did I comment on his banning, which may very well be justified by his behaviour. My point was strictly limited to a user's rights to portray himself on his own user page in a manner that best describes him.
And who was "baselesly accused"? Essentially, I was commenting on those who proclaim, "We will not tolerate ..." The Nazis did a very effective job of not tolerating.
Ec
On Thursday 17 February 2005 19:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Democracy should not protect those who seek to destroy it.
NSK a écrit:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 19:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Democracy should not protect those who seek to destroy it.
I get very similar messages on my blog. Generally, they come from casino bots.
Ant
lol. Casino bots for equal representation!
Mark
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:14:30 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
NSK a écrit:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 19:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Democracy should not protect those who seek to destroy it.
I get very similar messages on my blog. Generally, they come from casino bots.
Ant
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
NSK wrote:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 19:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Democracy should not protect those who seek to destroy it.
A democracy that uses Nazi tactics is no longer a democracy.
Ec
NSK said:
On Thursday 17 February 2005 19:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a fundamental contradiction when you try to suppress Neo-Nazis by emulating their behaviour.
Democracy should not protect those who seek to destroy it.
Well whether or not you think it should, the fact is that it does.
As our policy is currently written, running off neo-nazis or Stalinist (or Trotskyist or Maoist) revolutionaries is not permitted. Nor is exclusion of open advocates of Islamic (or Zionist) terrorism. In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
The actions you describe are not acceptable behavior from Wikipedia administrators.
Fred
From: "Jack Lutz" jack-lutz@comcast.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:06:06 -0600 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] NSM88, deletion of user page image, personal attacks
Hello, I understand user NSM88 had at one time an image of himself dressed in some kind of Nazi or neo-Nazi uniform displayed on his user page, and that it was deleted. Two issues stemming from that: deletion justification, and personal attacks by admins.
The deletion log reads:
12:06, 15 Feb 2005 Theresa knott deleted Image:Walternsm.jpg (This image will upset a number of users and lead to disruption rather than cooperation)
This bothers me. That it will "lead to disruption" is, I think, a strained justification for removing an image of someone used on their own personal page which, so far as I know contained nothing more 'graphic' than a 'Nazi uniform'.
If the justification for deleting an image is that it bore a Nazi emblem, then at least one administrator is deleting images which offend their own or other contributors' personal or political beliefs. How can that stand? If I should upload an image of myself wearing a Democratic or Republican pin, for example, would that be "disruptive"? There is no evidence that he did not act in good faith.
Looking at it further, I see personal motives for banning and personal attacks against him by an administrator.
I've blocked you for being a hateful individual. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User talk:NSM88]
Feel free to visit nsm888 on some OTHER website. Removing advertising for an offensive organisation.) [User:NSM88 edit summary, 11:23, 15 Feb 2005 Ta bu shi da yu]
Liberation from what? Liberation from having a brain? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User:NSM88 hist]
You are now only blocked for 48 hours. Don't thank me though. If I had my way, none of you people would be posting on here. But I'll be watching you. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User talk:NSM88]
Sure he has. His political views are extremely hateful. He openly proclaimed that he was a white supremecist (though under the guise of "White liberation"). If you don't like what I did, tough. I've been open about what I've done, but I don't expect you to understand. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) [User talk:NSM88]
Please, someone tell me this isn't acceptable behavior from administrators.
[[en:User:119]] _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050217 23:28]:
As our policy is currently written, running off neo-nazis or Stalinist (or Trotskyist or Maoist) revolutionaries is not permitted. Nor is exclusion of open advocates of Islamic (or Zionist) terrorism. In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
I'm not sure we actually *need* this as yet. The Wikipedia immune system appears to be working fine from here.
The actions you describe are not acceptable behavior from Wikipedia administrators.
The blocks were seen as unfair and promptly undone by other admins, which demonstrates to the original blockers that their reason was seen as inadequate. Though my block (for being a trolling account with no good edits - I am entirely unconvinced that User:NSM88 has anything to do with the personit purports to be operated by) stuck, until being unblocked yesterday by Snowspinner as it was clogging an AOL proxy. (The way to get around that one, as I understand it, is to undo the IP number block but leave the username blocked.)
Admins not sure about whether something should be blocked should ask on [[WP:AN]], which is excellent for sanity checking of janitorial decisions.
- d.
On Feb 17, 2005, at 6:33 AM, David Gerard wrote:
The blocks were seen as unfair and promptly undone by other admins, which demonstrates to the original blockers that their reason was seen as inadequate. Though my block (for being a trolling account with no good edits - I am entirely unconvinced that User:NSM88 has anything to do with the personit purports to be operated by) stuck, until being unblocked yesterday by Snowspinner as it was clogging an AOL proxy. (The way to get around that one, as I understand it, is to undo the IP number block but leave the username blocked.)
No, no, it was a different block I undid. NSM is still blocked.
-Snowspinner
David Gerard wrote:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050217 23:28]:
As our policy is currently written, running off neo-nazis or Stalinist (or Trotskyist or Maoist) revolutionaries is not permitted. Nor is exclusion of open advocates of Islamic (or Zionist) terrorism. In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
I'm not sure we actually *need* this as yet. The Wikipedia immune system appears to be working fine from here.
I'm with David.
When the stormfront people started talking about taking over wikipedia, I assured everyone that we will not allow that to happen. I meant that. We will change the rules if we have to do so.
But David's right... we don't need to change the rules yet. The rules already take into account plenty of ways to deal with this sort of thing.
--Jimbo
Fred Bauder said:
In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
Why? ArbCom can already exclude anybody who misbehaves. The policy as you're described it is also subject to interpretation. The words "totalitarian" and "terrorism" are both very slippery.
The Arbcom cannot exclude an advocate of totalitarianism or terrorism under our current policies, indeed, we cannot even accept a case on that basis alone. The user must go beyond advocacy and violate NPOV, make personal attacks, delete encyclopedic material, attempt to dominate a block of articles with aggressive POV editing, etc. before we can accept a case or even issue a mild rebuke. A polite thoughtful neo-nazi is welcome to edit under our current policies.
The Arbcom has a few critics who think we do otherwise, but while there is prejudice against these folks once they fall into our clutches we do more or less follow expressed Wikipedia policy.
Fred
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:37:50 -0000 (GMT) To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] NSM88, deletion of user page image, personal attacks
Fred Bauder said:
In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
Why? ArbCom can already exclude anybody who misbehaves. The policy as you're described it is also subject to interpretation. The words "totalitarian" and "terrorism" are both very slippery.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The Arbcom cannot and should not exclude _advocates_, but it would have good grounds to exclude _advocacy_, because that is hardly if ever NPOV. If someone spends a large part of their Wikipedia time in an area where after repeated attempts they do not seem to be willing and able to write NPOV, I think arbitration could step in to forbid them from editing on that subject.
However, such should be judged from the extent to which their POV hinders their NPOV editing, not from the nature of the POV they are editing from. Although it can hardly be avoided that we put the bar higher for people with a more extreme and uncommon POV, this to me means that we should encourage those who manage to pass that higher bar and compliment them. I would be happy to see a neonazi write about the major groups and leaders in their field.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:01:01 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The Arbcom cannot exclude an advocate of totalitarianism or terrorism under our current policies, indeed, we cannot even accept a case on that basis alone. The user must go beyond advocacy and violate NPOV, make personal attacks, delete encyclopedic material, attempt to dominate a block of articles with aggressive POV editing, etc. before we can accept a case or even issue a mild rebuke. A polite thoughtful neo-nazi is welcome to edit under our current policies.
The Arbcom has a few critics who think we do otherwise, but while there is prejudice against these folks once they fall into our clutches we do more or less follow expressed Wikipedia policy.
Fred
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:37:50 -0000 (GMT) To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] NSM88, deletion of user page image, personal attacks
Fred Bauder said:
In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
Why? ArbCom can already exclude anybody who misbehaves. The policy as you're described it is also subject to interpretation. The words "totalitarian" and "terrorism" are both very slippery.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Andre Engels (andreengels@gmail.com) [050218 00:35]:
The Arbcom cannot and should not exclude _advocates_, but it would have good grounds to exclude _advocacy_, because that is hardly if ever NPOV. If someone spends a large part of their Wikipedia time in an area where after repeated attempts they do not seem to be willing and able to write NPOV, I think arbitration could step in to forbid them from editing on that subject. However, such should be judged from the extent to which their POV hinders their NPOV editing, not from the nature of the POV they are editing from. Although it can hardly be avoided that we put the bar higher for people with a more extreme and uncommon POV, this to me means that we should encourage those who manage to pass that higher bar and compliment them. I would be happy to see a neonazi write about the major groups and leaders in their field.
The ARbCom has addressed this precise issue in two recent cases - LaRouche 2 (just closed) and Robert the Bruce (ongoing). Holding and advocating a strong point of view elsewhere is not considered prima facie evidence of POV-pushing on Wikipedia itself - only the edits are that. Of course, if someone is here owing to a call to action on a mailing list, or from a group known for uncompromising evangelism of their position, their edits are likely to be under considerable scruitiny.
But most activists are activists because they want to make the world better; only a minority are sufficiently obsessed with their cause to blithely mess up other things for the cause. So there's no reason to presume they're not comporting themselves properly here unless and until they actually do just that. Indeed, a proper NPOV presentation is probably the best way to get one's point into Wikipedia.
That said, Wikipedia may be tolerant but we're not stupid.
- d.
True and in our human attempt to adequately describe such folks we use the words "totalitarian" and "terrorist", in reference to such organizations and governments as the People's Republic of China and individuals such as Osama bin Ladin. Such folks do not hesitate to "mess up other things for the cause". There is every reason, based on their history, to presume that they will conduct themselves in that way on Wikipedia and in fact they routinely do so, some crudely, some with a measure of sophistication.
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:11:26 +1100 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Polite Thoughtful Neo-Nazis, was NSM88, deletion of user page image, personal attacks
only a minority are sufficiently obsessed with their cause to blithely mess up other things for the cause. So there's no reason to presume they're not comporting themselves properly here unless and until they actually do just that.
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050218 01:23]:
True and in our human attempt to adequately describe such folks we use the words "totalitarian" and "terrorist", in reference to such organizations and governments as the People's Republic of China and individuals such as Osama bin Ladin. Such folks do not hesitate to "mess up other things for the cause". There is every reason, based on their history, to presume that they will conduct themselves in that way on Wikipedia and in fact they routinely do so, some crudely, some with a measure of sophistication.
Astroturfing in general is going to be a problem. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.251.90.242
The edit in question is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo%21&diff=prev&oldid=1...
That's a crude example. I am certain there are much less crude examples ongoing as we speak.
- d.
David Gerard said:
Astroturfing
Astrowhat?
astroturfing - definition from jargon astroturfing n.
1. The use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement, through means like letters to newspapers from soi-disant `concerned citizens', paid opinion pieces, and the formation of grass-roots lobbying groups that are actually funded by a PR group (AstroTurf is fake grass; hence the term).
2. What an individual posting to a public forum under an assumed name is said to be doing.
This term became common among hackers after it came to light in early 1998 that Microsoft had attempted to use such tactics to forestall the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust action against the company. The maneuver backfired horribly, angering a number of state attorneys-general enough to induce them to go public with plans to join the Federal suit. It also set anybody defending Microsoft on the net for the accusation "You're just astroturfing!".
Oh. I learned something new.
Now that I've watched the discussion, I have some things to say about this.
First of all, I *strongly* object to arguments like "nothing more 'graphic' than a 'Nazi uniform'."...wearing a Nazi uniform is quite a strong statement, at least for Europeans. "If I should upload an image of myself wearing a Democratic or Republican pin, for example, would that be "disruptive"?" -> How can one even THINK of putting a democrat or republican on the same level as a Nazi ?
I completely support NSK when he says that "the administrators were right to delete it. Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia." Maybe people outside Europe don't get the point as much as we do, since we had grandparents fighting in WWII, lost family members, and obviously have already a different attitude towards all Nazi-symbols. Plus, on the lb wiki, the guy would have been banned from the start since nazi-symbols are considered to be illegal and must not be posted in Luxembourg (even if the servers aren't in Lux, the pages are written in luxembourgish and the public is luxembourgish).
Ok, maybe the way the administrator proceeded to make the blocks was not in the same way that someone else would have done them, but that's the only objection I have to make. How can we possibly tolerate a user who already by his username does offend a great deal of other contributors and moreover has links on his userpage to a site where I can't even find the words to describe it.
IMHO,
Caroline aka Briséis (lb, fr).
-----Message d'origine----- De : wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] De la part de David Gerard Envoyé : jeudi 17 février 2005 15:29 À : wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Objet : Re: [Wikipedia-l] Polite Thoughtful Neo-Nazis, was NSM88,deletion of user page image, personal attacks
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050218 01:23]:
True and in our human attempt to adequately describe such folks we use the words "totalitarian" and "terrorist", in reference to such organizations and governments as the People's Republic of China and individuals such as Osama bin Ladin. Such folks do not hesitate to "mess up other things for the cause". There is every reason, based on their history, to presume that they will conduct themselves in that way on Wikipedia and in fact they routinely do so, some crudely, some with
a measure of sophistication.
Astroturfing in general is going to be a problem. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.251.90.242
The edit in question is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo%21&diff=prev&oldid=1...
That's a crude example. I am certain there are much less crude examples ongoing as we speak.
- d. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I have relatives who died in the holocaust, and I am against everything Nazis stand for, yet I will defend to the death their right to free speech and I believe that they should be just as welcome as anybody else in editing Wikipedia as long as they can maintain NPOV.
An image of a swastika upsets me very much. However it is not for the reason you might presume. Whenever I see a swastika, I think of a symbol which has been used for thousands of years in China, India, and elsewhere which was only recently used by such a hateful group of people, but which to over 2 billion people still symbolises luck and happiness. It upsets me that a group can take a symbol which has such a good reputation and commit such horrors that they take the lives of millions of people and use such a sacred religious symbol to stand for their actions.
My grandfather faught in WWII against Nazis. But as I said before, I don't see why we shouldn't allow these people to put images of themselves on their own userpage wearing a nazi uniform, except /maybe/ that it offends many people. We may be upset by their beliefs but if they play by the rules of Wikipedia, we have no right to kick them out just because they are filled with hate.
Mark
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:17:05 +0100, Caroline Ewen caroline@web.lu wrote:
Now that I've watched the discussion, I have some things to say about this.
First of all, I *strongly* object to arguments like "nothing more 'graphic' than a 'Nazi uniform'."...wearing a Nazi uniform is quite a strong statement, at least for Europeans. "If I should upload an image of myself wearing a Democratic or Republican pin, for example, would that be "disruptive"?" -> How can one even THINK of putting a democrat or republican on the same level as a Nazi ?
I completely support NSK when he says that "the administrators were right to delete it. Neo-Nazis will not be tolerated in Wikipedia." Maybe people outside Europe don't get the point as much as we do, since we had grandparents fighting in WWII, lost family members, and obviously have already a different attitude towards all Nazi-symbols. Plus, on the lb wiki, the guy would have been banned from the start since nazi-symbols are considered to be illegal and must not be posted in Luxembourg (even if the servers aren't in Lux, the pages are written in luxembourgish and the public is luxembourgish).
Ok, maybe the way the administrator proceeded to make the blocks was not in the same way that someone else would have done them, but that's the only objection I have to make. How can we possibly tolerate a user who already by his username does offend a great deal of other contributors and moreover has links on his userpage to a site where I can't even find the words to describe it.
IMHO,
Caroline aka Briséis (lb, fr).
-----Message d'origine----- De : wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] De la part de David Gerard Envoyé : jeudi 17 février 2005 15:29 À : wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Objet : Re: [Wikipedia-l] Polite Thoughtful Neo-Nazis, was NSM88,deletion of user page image, personal attacks
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050218 01:23]:
True and in our human attempt to adequately describe such folks we use the words "totalitarian" and "terrorist", in reference to such organizations and governments as the People's Republic of China and individuals such as Osama bin Ladin. Such folks do not hesitate to "mess up other things for the cause". There is every reason, based on their history, to presume that they will conduct themselves in that way on Wikipedia and in fact they routinely do so, some crudely, some with
a measure of sophistication.
Astroturfing in general is going to be a problem. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.251.90.242
The edit in question is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo%21&diff=prev&oldid=1...
That's a crude example. I am certain there are much less crude examples ongoing as we speak.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Though I was not one of the blocking admins, I support blocking NSM88, and would reblock. My grounds are not "he is a Nazi" nor "he is disruptive." I was willing to block upon seeing his userpage and name.
The fact of the matter is, "National Socialist Movement Heil Hitler" is an offensive username. Putting Nazi images on your userpage has the same effect as an offensive username. No matter how good his contributions might have turned out to be, they could not be made effectively from that account. So I consider it to be, if anything, a special case of offensive usernames.
-Snowspinner
Fred Bauder wrote:
As our policy is currently written, running off neo-nazis or Stalinist (or Trotskyist or Maoist) revolutionaries is not permitted. Nor is exclusion of open advocates of Islamic (or Zionist) terrorism. In my opinion we should change that policy and permit exclusion of open advocates of totalitarian ideologies and terrorism.
I wouldn't want Wikipedia to be in a position of declaring certain ideologies "unwelcome". Whether the proper way of governing a nation-state is along fascist lines, monarchist lines, liberal lines, or no lines at all is an interesting political-science debate, but not one we need to have an "official Wikipedia position" on. Similarly, I don't think we need to answer the question of "when, if ever, is terrorism justified?" in order to write an encyclopedia.
In fact, I don't see how these are qualitatively different than any of the other content disputes on Wikipedia.
-Mark
Hi,
This mail belongs to wikien-l [1] Please don't send off topic subjects here, so to keep the list readable for everybody.
Regards, Yann
[1] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org