[WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is

[Graham Burnett]

----- Original Message -----
From: <wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #223 - 7 msgs


> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Stevertigo and anti-Semitism (Stevertigo)
>    2. Re: Re: Slogan policy (was: DTK article) (Stevertigo)
>    3. Re: Stevertigo and anti-Semitism (The Cunctator)
>    4. Re: Vicki's Question (koyaanis qatsi)
>    5. Re: Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is (Geoff
Burling)
>    6. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and other similar entries
(Tony Wilson)
>    7. Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is (Daniel Mayer)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo and anti-Semitism
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:01:52 -0800
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> >RK:I am really having a tough time digesting all of
> > Stevertigo's barbs at Jews diatribes on this list.  His
> > obsession with Jews, and those who hate Jews, is the only
> > common link to his contributions to Wikipedia.
> Ah. So in other words "I didnt bother to actually read what
> Steve wrote, but I's sure it was Jew bashing from that anti-Semite." Sorry
> Robert, Ive been cluing people into how the term anti-Semite is commonly
> used to slander people who speak the truth about Israeli atrocities in the
> name of Yahave.  Next question.
>
> >RK: Do people here recall his attempts to promote Nazi
> > Holocaust deniers as mainstream academics that deserve
> > respect?  His repeated edits which attempt to deny that
> > anti-Semitism exists in many articles?  His attempts to
> > claim that anti-Semitism doesn't mean hatred of Jews at
> > all?  His constant Jew-baiting, where he lists a handful of
> > people that much of the Jewish community views as
> > anti-Jewish - whom he then presents as heros?
> None of this is true, of course. I did write an essay on David Irving
which
> essentially said 'for all of his Holocaust denials, at least he never
killed
> anyone, which is more than can be said for that IDF bulldozer driver that
> murdered Rachel Corrie. Read your Ten Commandments baby...
>
> >RK: Does anyone here do constant atheist baiting? Christian
> > baiting?  Hindu baiting?  No. We only see Stevertigo's Jew
> > baiting...and it has been gooing on for quite some time.
>
> I  still dont understand the term "Jew baiting".  It sounds like something
> southern Aryan racists might say... of course, Jewish American Zionists,
> according to their literature dont consider racist Jew-hating White
> Supremacists as "anti-Semitic" because many are close with Christian
> Zionists... and its the liberal who considers Palestinians as actual human
> beings who is the  "real anti-Semite" Jew hater.
> ( http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s20.html )
>
> >RK:Consider his newest post: He finds a handful of people of
> > Jewish descent who say anti-Jewish things, which many Jews
> >find anti-Semitic. Stevertigo quotes them, promotes them
> > for the sole purpose of attacking Jews, yet then claims
> > that he can't be anti-Semitic, because they are Jews, and
> > Jews cannot be anti-Semitic. Is anyone fooled by this
> > childish wordplay?
> No. Noone is fooled by your childish wordplay. They all actually read the
> last posts, (tracing through the header-changes) and they know that you
> obviously didnt.
>
> >RK:By the way, Stevertigo himself knows that his claims are
> > false.  A phenomenom common to many ethnic and >national  groups is the
> existence of self-hatred.
> Yes, and this would explain your behaviour, Roberticus.. I submit these
> quotes from ( http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/19antis1.htm )
>                "The assumption of an eternal anti-Semitism ... has been
> adapted by a great many unbiased historians and by even a greater number
of
> Jews. It is this odd coincidence which makes the theory so very dangerous
> and confusing. Its escapist basis is in both instances the same; just as
> anti-Semites understandably desire to escape responsibility for their
deeds,
> so Jews, attacked and on the defensive, even more understandably, do not
> wish to under any circumstances discuss their share of responsibility."
>                                                                Hannah
> Arendt, Origins, p. 7 (Jewish historian)
> "For some Jews and perhaps some of the Jewish leadership, the fear is that
> if anti-Semitism completely disappears then the Jewish community might
erode
> or dissolve."  Stanley Rothman, (in STALLSWORTH, p. 67)
>
> >RK:Examples of people who are sometimes considered Jewish
> > anti-Semites are Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak. Referring to works by
> Israel Shahak and others, The ADL's >report on
> > The Talmud and Anti-Semitism states "In distorting the
> > normative meaning of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers
> > frequently remove passages from their textual and
> > historical context....Those who attack the Talmud
> > frequently cit ancient rabbinic sources without noting
> > subsequent developments in Jewish thought....Are the
> > polemicists Anti-Semites? This is a charged term that
> > should not be used lightly, but the answer, by and large,
> > is yes. Now and then a polemicist of this type may have
> > been bon Jewish, but their systematic distortion of the
> > ancient texts, always in the direction of portrarying
> > Judaism negatively, their lack of interest in good-faith
> > efforts to understand contemporary Judaism from
> > contemporary Jews, and their dimissal of any voices
> > opposing their own, suggests that their goal in reading
> > ancient rabbinic literature is to produce the Frankenstein
> > version of Judaism that they invariable claim to have
> > uncovered."
> Rubbish. Utter rubbish. You refer to The ADL as an unbiased source??? "one
> of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli
press
> casually describes it." (Neccessary Illusions) Tell me, what do you think
> about what Dennis Bernstien says:
> "Everyone else is terrified. The only ones who begin to open their mouths
> are the Jews in this country. You know, as a kid, I sent money to plant
> trees in Israel. But now we are horrified by a government representing a
> country that we grew up loving and cherishing. Israel's defenders have a
> special vengeance for Jews who don't fall in line behind Sharon's
> scorched-earth policy because they give the lie to the charge that
Israel's
> critics are simply anti-Semite."
> (
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?dir=7&story=313235&ho
> st=3&printable=1 )
>
> >RK:Chomsky and Shahak, not surprisingly, are about the only
> >> people of Jewish descent that Stevertigo agrees with.  What
> >> conclusion can one draw from this?
> No they are not. Im sure I agree with you on some issues. And now you
admit:
> your criteria for *who is anti-Semitic is directly linked to *which Jews
> they do or do not agree with.  I see now. Thank you for clarifying,
Robert.
>
> >RK:No, Stevertigo, the term is merely used to accurately describe you.
> Of course!!  I agree!!  It's a "term merely used" by racist Jewish bigots
to
> slander critical thinking people like me. Thank you and God bless.  :) -SV
> Ps. I should add that Its Hanlon's Razor that allows me to respond in kind
> to you RK, otherwise the Murphy's Law of: "never argue with a fool" would
> forbid me.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Slogan policy (was: DTK article)
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:03:43 -0800
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> > Ed Poor wrote:
> >
> > >How about some convention like "Slogan: XYZ" or "The slogan: 'XYZ'", as
> in:
> > >* [[Slogan: Death to Moonies]]
> > >* [[The slogan: Moonies stink]]
> >
> > No, no, no! It should say "Death to Moonies, PLEASE." C'mon folks,
> > let's try to show some proper MANNERS around this joint. ;)
>
> And your sense of HUMOR is not lost on us Sheldon... :) -SV
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo and anti-Semitism
> From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: 20 Mar 2003 01:49:11 -0500
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> This exchange really does not belong on the mailing list.
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:36:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Vicki's Question
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> >Ah you *ask* finally. Allow me instead of simply
> giving
> >you a fish, teach you *how to fish, and ask you to
> >figure it out: 1. Stevertigo incessantly
> >quotes Chomsky, Einstein, Robert Zimmerman,.. thinks
> >Rachmaninoff surpassed all composers, loved
> Shindler's
> >List, and am waiting eagerly for Occupation
> >101...   Can you fish? -SV
>
> I can fish, but I was out for bass and I think this
> must be brim.  here's what's on the hook:
>
> My mother has nearly every movie Whoopi Goldberg
> starred in (yes, even the one where she becomes a
> basketball coach).  I asked her about it once.  Her
> response was that she doesn't consider Whoopi black.
> There are people that she considers black, and it's
> apparent she doesn't like them (though it's not
> apparent why).  She clutches her purse more closely
> when a black man gets on the elevator, and she has
> this odd fondness for the word "nigger." Unless, that
> is, there are black people around; then she's
> friendly, cheerful--obsequious even--and remains so
> until they leave.
>
> I'm not sure why that occurred to me, as you hardly
> seem the obsequious type.
>
> kq
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:47:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> I'm not one who was part of the Lir/Vera/Susan dispute, & I'll
> admit that I'm ignorant of many of the more subtle & minor details
> of this issue, but there are 3 very important points here that
> means the person who is Lir/Vera/Susan will remain banned from
> Wikipedia for the foreseeable future:
>
> 1) Jimmy Wales has stated that Lir/Vera/Susan is banned. And despite
> what the rest of us may think, as long as Jimmy is paying for the
> server & the bandwidth, he calls the rules. If you don't like that
> fact, then come up with enough money so that Wikipedia won't
> come to a sudden end if Jimmy decides to (literally) pull the plug &
> spend his money on something he finds more rewarding.
>
> (And I must needs add here that Jimmy is far more laid back &
> understanding than I would ever be in his situation. One does not
> accidentally piss off Jimmy -- one must make a concerted effort to
> do so.)
>
> 2) There have been a number of efforts to get Lir/Vera/Susan to
> discuss his/her reasons for his/her actions or opinions. The one
> that made the most definite impression on me was when Ed Poor,
> who had been in private discussion with Lir/Vera/Susan, tried to
> get him/her to discuss his/her viewpoint with the peopel on this
> mailling list. And Lir/Vera/Susan abruptly decided to be silent.
>
> Now I'll admit that sometimes I'm struck dumb when I want to provide
> a defense for my actions, but this was one of those ``put up or shut
> up" moments: either Lir/Vera/Susan offered some kind of explanation
> for his/her acts, or stopped entirely, out of shame or embarassment
> for being unable to justify them. Lir/Vera/Susan has done neither.
>
> 3) Lastly, there are a lot of people here on Wikipedia who, frankly
> speaking, consider Lir/Vera/Susan to be an asshole. Why would anyone
> want to hang around a group of people who think she/he is an asshole?
> Wikipedia is not the only game in town: there's the everything2
> & the h2g2 projects. Lir/Vera/Susan could join either of
> those, & prove he/she has reformed & is capable of making valuable
> contributions there.
>
> Now comes Zoe with her question:
>
> > > How many freaking times do we have to go over this?
>
> Unfortunately, as many times as Lir/Vera/Susan returns to Wikipedia
> with a new name, & as many times as we have new contributors. Perhaps
> we need an FAQ or similar document to help reduce the number of questions
> about this unique individual.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Tony Wilson" <list at redhill.net.au>
> To: "WikiEN" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:42:08 +1100
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and other
similar entries
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> I see the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and related entries are
> taking a POV hammering again. TUF-KAT, Zoe,  and I have had to do
> reverts to it to restore balance in the past, and now Cferrero is doing
> revert duty tonight. A big problem with this stuff is that many of us
> (I am certainly one) sometimes lack the detailed knowledge to be 100%
> confident we are reverting POV ranting and not removing real
> information. (This particular entry has not been too bad so far, no
> massive edit wars and just one IP ban, but there is a whole class of
> broadly similar stuff, and this one will serve as an example of the
> general class as well as any.)
>
> Maybe it is worth considering having a special class of Wikipedia
> article that is not a completely protected page, but can only be edited
> by logged-in contributors. I'm not sure if this would work or not, or
> if it would be practical to implement. I'm just thinking aloud. Any
> bright ideas out there? Comments?
>
>
> Tony Wilson
> (Tannin)
> list at redhill.net.au
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:00:28 -0800
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 09:23 pm, Graham Burnett wrote:
> > Well I'm quite new to this mailing list, so forgive my ignorance, but it
> > seems that alot goes on 'behind the scenes' of wikipedia here,
>
> Behind the scenes? This is a publicly readable, unmoderated mailing list
that
> is open to anybody with an email account. In addition, a link is on the
Main
> Page says "Mailing lists" and you might have noticed the same link at the
top
> of Recent Changes. Oh and on the "Mailing lists" page is a direct link to
the
> archives where every single post that has ever been made resides - we hide
> nothing here.
>

OK, bad choice of words on my part, I wasn't implying that there is a
shadowy coterie of all powerful wikipedians running the wiki world in a
covert way or anything, rather that there is alot of discussion away from
the actual wikipedia and it's talk pages that I wasn't previously aware of-
I dimly knew that there was a mailing list, but it wasn't until the link to
the mailing list appeared on the recent changes page (or at least until I
noticed it there...) that I actually made the effort to read it/subscribe.


> The case for Lir is very clear, crystal you might say. I in fact was one
of
> the people who advocated banning Lir. But I've been largely silent about
Vera
> and Susan because as bad as they were/are they both are improvements over
> Lir's outrageous behavior (I do believe that Susan = Lir but I haven't
seen
> undeniable evidence for this yet - but she does tend to stir-up more than
her
> fair share of trouble).

fair enough, but I'm uncomfortable with idea that anybody should be
considered 'iredeemable', if Lir is indeed now Susna Mason, but is actually
towing the line and is contributing to the project in a useful and
constructive way (and seems to be from the random samplings I've seen of
them, tho I admit I read far from all their edits & contributions, I'm going
mainly on the Rachel Corrie page (the wiki entry, not the user)), is it
right to remove that person because in another life they were Lir, so to
speak? Or do we take them on the merit of what they are doing NOW? If the
latter then there is far more case for removing Michael who is far more of a
nuisance to the project IMHO

> Below are links to the archives with the relevant subject titles below the
> links - happy reading (you could have just as easily looked this up BTW -
> that is one reason why some people have been impatient with these types of
> questions):

Thanks, I'll look at these.

Cheers Graham (Quercus robur)