[WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

[Steve Bennett]

On 5/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is
> justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations)
> his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]]
> that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there
> are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to
> add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order
> to make that ethnicity look bad.


Can you clarify: when you say "determination" do you mean "he was determined
to do this" or "he is determined to do this". If he overstepped the mark and
got hit for 3RR, that's one thing. If you think he's going to do the same
thing to the same article, that's another.


We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the
> African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the
> first sentence as a "convicted felon,"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&oldid=45070079
> and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them
> useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares


Useless?  Nah, no reason they couldn't sort stubs, fight vandalism or  work
on Pokemon articles. Has anyone seriously made a push for Mediawiki
supporting article-level bans? As awful as it sounds, it would actually be
useful for us to tag articles [[Black people]] and blocking certain people
from editing such articles.

if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be
> Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent
> addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs
> designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic
> or Judaism fascist.


If that's their *only* goal at Wikipedia, that's one thing. If they just
happen to strongly believe that and attempt to "correct" these articles when
they come across them, well, they need guidance.

That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a
> Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry
> and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so
> on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be
> a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
>

Also from looking at his contributions, virtually every single one was
reverted. Useless indeed.

Steve