[Wikipedia-l] Helga banned

[Steve Callaway]

Jaap,

There is a long and tedious history to this which your posting plainly
reveals your are unaware of.

I am certainly no advocate of blanket bans etc, however this is one which is
seriously belated, and our failure to act and remove the troubled and
troublesome Ms Hecht has severely set back work on several key areas of
historical work. Every effort has been made to accommodate her within the
programme and she has studiously and assiduously refused to comply with even
simple requests to conform with good or even acceptable practice.

The corollary of not banning the likes of Ms Hecht is that the historical
effort has to date lost two highly valued and valuable contributors: how
many more is her infantile and inflammatory gibberish to alienate before we
act? This is overdue and not precipitate action.

Steve Callaway



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaap van Ganswijk" <ganswijk at xs4all.nl>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Helga banned


> At 2002-09-09 10:19 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
> >arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
> >to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
> >period of 3 months.
>
> Banned from what? This list? The English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia?
>
> 3 months is too long to ban people anyway. Try 2 days first, then
> a week, then twice that.
>
> As an European this reminds me of communism and nazisme.
>
> Was she tried before a competent judge? Or before a jury of
> here peers?
>
> How can new Wikipedia-aspirant writers expect to be treated
> fairly whenever they will try to introduce a new aspect in
> say 20 years when you are all over 40?
>
> Anyway I think that legal matters like this should be handled
> more carefully.
>
> What I object most to, it that the subject itself may have
> been disallowed to right to rebuttle.
>
> >After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
>
> Sure, and some sex on the side.
>
> >I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
> >the vast majority will be.
>
> Not me.
>
> >Such is the nature of consensus.
>
> The nature of consensus is that you achieve it first.
>
> >I can't wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
>
> Is there some voting mechanism or did you just ask your
> friends?
>
> >I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent,
>
> So don't do it.
>
> >which is why I have
> >waited so long to take action in this case.
>
> Ok, so because you waited so long, it makes it
> right? And from which did you ban here exactly?
> And why?
>
> >Banning should always be a "last resort".
>
> Yes. Like the death penalty.
>
> And we don't like that in Europe.
>
> >After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
> >and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
> >her,
>
> So we lost one contributor, who may have had other
> things to do (like me), and Helga is to blame!
>
> Conflicts like this with Helga motivate
> me to stay. Like my heroes Caesar, Machiavelli
> etc. I like conflict.
>
> >we are now at a last resort stage.
>
> No, don't over dramatize matters. Buy I good 3D-video-card
> and play games like 'Gore', Unreal etc. to relax.
>
> >To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
> >on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
> >resolve differences.
>
> Strangeligy enough you seem to reverse the classical
> pattern of man versus woman.
>
> >Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
> >her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
> >her posting style
>
> Huh, you expect someone obviously new to the mailing
> list fenomenon to immediately reflect on her own behaviour?
>
> How un-in-touch-with reality are you?
>
> >in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
> >to repeat her strange historical claims.
>
> You should distinguish between asocial behaviour and
> between having the 'wrong ideas'.
>
> >In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
> >avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
> >than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
> >decision.
>
> And since this was done in public, I do this in public.
>
> >Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this,
>
> Sure and in exchange for sex perhaps?
>
> >but there is really no appeal possible at this point.
>
> Why not? Ban me too!
>
> Freedom of speech is not for the easy cases, but for the
> cases that you'd like to censor.
>
> >The ban is not
> >permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
> >3 months time.
>
> Three months is like a life sentence for freedom of speech.
>
> Bah,
> Jaap
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>