On Sunday 25 August 2002 05:33 pm, you wrote: As a red blooded American I think that law is well intentioned but just ranks with anti-free speech totalitarian newspeak and probably does more to encourage Neo-Nazis and their ilk than to discourage them (punishing people just because they have certain views tends to make other people with similar views get the "us vs. them" mentality; which just strengthens their resolve and encourages ideas about "conspiracies" to "get them" that "must be stopped" = the law inadvertently creates a class of people actively opposed to the government when there were only various unrelated people with similar ideas before). We should therefore /not/ even begin to consider banning anyone just because they are breaking such a law. However, we are trying to build a fact-based and neutral encyclopedia, so if we do /temporarily/ block Helga then the /only/ reason why is because she is a major drain on contributor resources and she is therefore harming the goals and progress of the project. BTW, people should be able to say whatever they want in everyday life or their personal websites but if any of that is to be in a neutral and fact-based encyclopedia then it must be backed-up with evidence or highly qualified ("such and such says this, but others say that and yet others say the first two are wrong because..."). Well intentioned reasoning -- the last thing we need is Jimbo behind bars ;). Is this at all a possibility in German law? In the US Jimbo is protected by the fact that he is technically the ISP of wikipedia and therefore has limited liability on what users of his ISP do (not to mention 1st Amendment protections that protect both him and users of his ISP). There is also the German Wikipedia to consider -- I somehow get the feeling that the German Wikipedia is just filled with her nonsense propaganda (smaller project = fewer contributors who can successfully confront and debunk her "work" = Helga has much more power to get her way). -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)