[WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

[Haukur Þorgeirsson]

> While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are
> *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in
> the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off
> site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia
> users.

I don't personally hold such an absolute position. In exceptional cases,
like the one you describe below, I'd agree that off-site actions should be
taken into account.


> As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person
> posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting
> insults on a website attacking Wikipedia.  He posted links to a
> quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home
> address and his "followers".  I was out of town and frightened enough to
> have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
>
> That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period.  I don't think
> anyone disputes the ethics of this.

I certainly don't. I'd have done the same.


> I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly
> (but only slightly) less obvious.

I consider them very different indeed. Amelekite made absolutely no
attempt to link Wikipedian user names to real identities of people. Nor
did he even imply that this was possible. Nor did he call for harassment
of the people in question, even within Wikipedia. He called for monitoring
of their actions and fighting what he perceived as their bias. He made no
threats whatsoever, direct or implied.

He did use nasty vocabulary in referring to the people on his list. If
he'd done it inside Wikipedia I would not have objected to a block. But
since it obviously wasn't his intention that his rude words would ever
reach the ears of the people he applied them to I feel that we should give
less weight to them (but certainly some weight). I also feel we should
give weight to the facts that he

a) edited in good faith on Wikipedia, as shown by his contribution log

b) called for any new recruits to the 'pedia to respect our rules and the
Neutral Point of View

c) promoted legitimate user names and adherence to the rules as the best
way of avoiding blocks.

Summing all this up I find the block unwarranted. I can understand that
reasonable people may disagree and may want to give more weight to other
aspects of the issue. It's a close call.

Regards,
Haukur