>
> From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
>
> There is nothing special about nazi's that allows you to block them on
> sight. In order for that to occur, some substantial policies would
> need to be changed. As is, someone who is a murderer IRL is allowed to
> edit, much less some member of an unpopular forum.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019013.html
[WikiEN-l] Neo-nazis to attack wikipedia
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales at wikia.com
Mon Feb 7 01:45:54 UTC 2005
JAY JG wrote:
> I can see that once they figure out how to game the 3RR, permanent
> changes to article content is next.
We'll just change the rules. I'll just start blocking Nazis at whim
if I have to. I'll initiate legal action if appropriate.
If they want to play games with us, fine. This is Calvinball -- we
make up the rules, so we win. Easy.
--Jimbo
Amalekite's thread on stormfront is titled "jews trying to take over wikipedia". I think that's quite clear as to the drawing of "ethinic lines".
Homey
>
> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
> Date: 2005/08/23 Tue AM 10:48:21 EST
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
>
> >From: Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is>
> >
> >It is a list of those belonging to a "Zionist cabal". That's not a
> >statement of ethnicity.
>
> "Zionist cabal" in the sense of Zionist cabal described in the [[Protocols
> of the Elders of Zion]]. The suggestion that people here are being labelled
> "Zionist" based on their political beliefs, rather than ethnicity, is, in my
> view, hardly credible, particularly given his other posts refering to
> "Jews", "kikes", "pro-Jewish bias", etc.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> Please keep in mind that if a link is used as a reference for an
> article, especially if it is cited in the article text, it should
> never be removed, even if dead, until a suitable replacement reference
> is provided.
Can't we replace such links with links to web.archive.org then?
--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org
It's either block him now or block him later. He's
not interested in NPOV or building an encyclopedia or
anything else we value. He's a Nazi and all he wants
to do is fight the Jews. Perhaps his edits look fine
now, but there's always the chance he is engaging in
or will engage in a less obvious form of racist
vandalism by subtly skewing articles. Whatever it is,
it will happen and it will escalate. On SF they are
quite openly talking about ways to infiltrate
Wikipedia so they can skew the content the way they
want it skewed. That should be enough to ban them on
sight here.
Gamaliel
On 8/23/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>
wrote:
> He was blocked for being a Nazi?
>
> I've looked at his edits (briefly) and can't see
anything that he's
> actually done wrong.
>
> Theresa
>
Oh here we go. This is his stormfront post
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536
"A cabal of Jews and their liberal-gentile "useful
idiots" are trying
to take over Wikipedia"
"The gang of kikes at Wikipedia managed to knock the
site Jew
Watch off the top of the Google search results page
last year"
"Don't let these vampire rodents pull
one more media outlet from out of our hands."
If he said that on Wikipedia I'd definately block him
for it. As it is
he said it off Wikipedia. I'm not comfotable about
blocking someone
under those circumstances.
Theresa
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello I added in the GISWiki an Extension for use (reuse) georeferenced maps
and one point in this map represents. Perhaps the Extension is for the
Wikipedia of use. The point coordinates are handed over in the format
geographical latitude and longitude (WGS84). The first example shows a
Germany map with a red point for the situation of a city (similar as in many
articles of the german Wikipedia)
Link: http://www.giswiki.de/index.php/Point-Mapping_Extension
Heinz
This raises a related point: why does the autoblocker use the name of the
admin that placed the original block? I realize there is a benefit to having
a specific person to request an unblock from, but I also see a lot of abuse
of this.
Anyone familiar with the constant AOL blocks of WBardwin will recognzie what
happens: Rather than "Admin X, you blocked someone and I was autoblocked by
mistake" the statement is always "Admin X, you blocked me. You should be
more careful about autoblocking AOL IP's. You admins are always placing
autoblocks against me and I can't get any work done." as if the blocking
admin has any control over the autoblocker!
We can't see the IP of the person we are blocking, in order to know if it is
an AOL IP, and we can't see the IP of anyone who is autoblocked (it is
masked on the block list). Autoblocks don't show up in our blocklog, so the
only recourse we have is to either not block anyone for any reason, or once
we place a block, spend the rest of our lives refreshing the blocklist every
thirty seconds in order to immediately unblock everyone who is ever
autoblocked.
Can something be done to either 1) remove the admin's name from autoblocks,
and/or 2) make autoblocked IPs visible both in the block list and the admins
block log so that we can watch for AOL IP's? (Both would be the best
solution.) As it is, all we can do is sit back and wait to be attacked for
things that are completely out of our control.
Essjay
>Mgm wrote:
>Have you tried contacting Andrevan about this first? The blocking
>should always be the first person to go to if you're blocked.
>--Mgm
8/20/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>You should see [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. You seem to be thinking of
>unanimity. I can't speak to the rest of it.
>
>Jack (Sam Spade)
>
>On 8/20/05, Dai Grepher <dai_grepher1051(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > My user name is Dai Grepher, my I.P address is 68.41.169.128, I am
>sending
this message because the administrator Andrevan has misused his abilities to
block me from editing any page but my own for 24 hours. While I know that
this
is a temporary block, I still believe that Andrevan should be reprimanded
for
misuse of administrating privileges, and I believe that he will continue to
misuse his powers unless he is reprimanded. The message I receive when
trying to
edit is as follows:
> >
> > "User is blocked
> > >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> > You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this
>page"
tab or by following a red link.
> >
> > Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Andrevan.
> >
> > The reason given is this:
> > Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dai
>Grepher".
The reason given for Dai Grepher's block is: "Ignoring consensus,
vandalizing
user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned."."
> >
> > On the talk page found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission
> > I have respectfully stated that a consensus on the issue is not
>applicable
to the article, since I have provided a substantial amount of evidence that
disproves the popular theory and those that have voted have clearly ignored
the
facts that I have presented. Also, this consensus does not reach beyond the
limits of Wikipedia to users holding a different belief and therefore does
not
represent the targeted fanbase. Under Wikipedia consensus policy, a
consensus
cannot be used to determine which side has "won" a dispute. It can only be
used
to see if there is a consensus, which there is not since I disagree with it
and
the opposition. Andrevan is using the consensus incorrectly as justification
for
changing the article to reflect his own opinion and also for blocking my
account.
> >
> > I have suggested that the article remain ambiguous, and not bias toward
their side or my own while dispute resolution takes its course. The others
debating the issue and myself have agreed to contact mediators and
arbitrators
to resolve the issue fairly. Andrevan makes it clear on the Zero Mission
talk
page listed above that he believes the popular theory and has stated orders
to
change the article to directly contradict me (Dai Grepher, found under the:
The
article should not be ambiguous, section of the article), which shows a
direct
prejudice against my theory and a complete disregard of the facts that I
have
presented that at the very least seriously question the popular theory.
> >
> > I have edited the article to be non-partisan and I have also made
>additions
to the page, which by Wikipedia policy is not classified as a revert.
Andrevan
is the one who has reverted and vandalized the page by ignoring the NPOV
policy.
Also, Andrevan has not posted warnings of blocking my account on my talk
page,
as Wikipedia's policy for handling vandalism states. I however have posted
these
required steps on his talk page and also The Missing Link's talk page
because
they continue to change the article to be biased.
> >
> > The second reason, an accusation that I have vandalized other user
>pages is
untrue. Andrevan is misusing his powers to preserve his own personal belief,
rather than protecting the page to be non-biased and allowing dispute
resolution
to take its course. By doing so, and blocking me, he is hindering the
peaceful
resolution of the dispute. I respectfully request that the administrator
Andrevan be given the full reprimand that he deserves.
> >
> > I urge you to please look into this matter at the talk page listed
>above,
and handle the issue responsibly. Thank you very much.
> >
> > -Dai Grepher
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
JAY JG wrote:
> Oh, and regarding me, "That Jayjg guy is a real partisan Jewish
> douchebag, and he seems omnipresent." That one really hurt.
> Omnipresent? Is that a euphemism for fat?
Come now, it's an attribute of deity (depending on one's theological
position), and you should be flattered that they recognize your natural
superiority.
--Michael Snow
> :-O
>
> Jay.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
> From:
> Arkady Rose <arkady(a)arkady.org.uk>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:46:03 +0100
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sadly, I appear to no longer be in control of Wikipedia; it turns out
>>the chief Jew is Jimbo himself:
>>[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=187311] They also
>>appear to have figured out anonymous proxies, TOR proxies, and dailup
>>IPs, and have advised their use (and used them with some success) to
>>get around blocks.
>>
>>Oh, and regarding me, "That Jayjg guy is a real partisan Jewish
>>douchebag, and he seems omnipresent." That one really hurt.
>>Omnipresent? Is that a euphemism for fat? :-O
>>
>>
>
>What had me giggling was the line about 'the term "Wiki" refers to
>"Wicca"' - these guys really do not have a clue about what a wiki really
>is or the origins of the word, do they? Heh. So next will we be accused
>of secretly running a coven? Oh, no, wait - don't tell me, that's the
>Secret Cabal of Administrators, right?
>
>Of course that would then lead to questions of whether it's a
>Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Lycian or Eclectiv coven - but hey, these are
>neo-nazis who don't let a little thing like religious accuracy get in
>their way. We're all devil worshippers and Jimbo sacrifices babies at
>the clambake every third Tuesday of the month, right?
>
>;-)
>
>- Arkady (who happens to be Wiccan....)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] An admin misused his privilages to block me...
> From:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:58:49 +0200
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>
>
>I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but
>I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
>
>--Mgm
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] An admin misused his privilages to block me...
> From:
> Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:08:06 +0100
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>
>
>On 8/22/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've seen a lot of vandalism coming from schools and universities, but
>>I've yet to see vandalism from the uni I attend.
>>
>>
>
>Possible conclusions
>
>Students from your university are exceptionally well behaved.
>Your university is very small.
>No one from your university bothers to do research on the web and so
>has never come across wikipedia. (except you)
>Everyone from your university (except you of course) is too stupid to
>work out that "edit this page" means they can edit a page.
>Your university is not connected to the Internet.
>
>Takes yer pick ;-)
>
>Theresa
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
> From:
> "Zachary Harden" <zscout370(a)hotmail.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:20:20 +0000
> To:
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To:
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
>
> Well, personally, this is going to fail. Not because of their lack of
> tech skills, nor from lack of users. It is lack of dough. From looking
> at what Wikimedia needs to raise and see how much they spend on just
> running the sites, I do not think Stormfront would have enough dough
> to pull it off. And most companies will probably not waste their time
> or money dealing with neo-Nazis. It's very, very un-PC for companies
> to deal with fascists.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zachary Harden
>
>> From: Arkady Rose <arkady(a)arkady.org.uk>
>> Reply-To: arkady(a)arkady.org.uk,English Wikipedia
>> <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
>> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:46:03 +0100
>>
>> JAY JG wrote:
>>
>> > Sadly, I appear to no longer be in control of Wikipedia; it turns out
>> > the chief Jew is Jimbo himself:
>> > [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=187311] They also
>> > appear to have figured out anonymous proxies, TOR proxies, and dailup
>> > IPs, and have advised their use (and used them with some success) to
>> > get around blocks.
>> >
>> > Oh, and regarding me, "That Jayjg guy is a real partisan Jewish
>> > douchebag, and he seems omnipresent." That one really hurt.
>> > Omnipresent? Is that a euphemism for fat? :-O
>>
>> What had me giggling was the line about 'the term "Wiki" refers to
>> "Wicca"' - these guys really do not have a clue about what a wiki really
>> is or the origins of the word, do they? Heh. So next will we be accused
>> of secretly running a coven? Oh, no, wait - don't tell me, that's the
>> Secret Cabal of Administrators, right?
>>
>> Of course that would then lead to questions of whether it's a
>> Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Lycian or Eclectiv coven - but hey, these are
>> neo-nazis who don't let a little thing like religious accuracy get in
>> their way. We're all devil worshippers and Jimbo sacrifices babies at
>> the clambake every third Tuesday of the month, right?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> - Arkady (who happens to be Wiccan....)
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary and improper article dating
> From:
> Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:21:33 -0400
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
> To:
> English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
>
> steve v wrote:
>
>> The Iraq War article has recently been formed to
>> consolodate the term under something a bit more
>> substantive than a disambiguation. There remains the
>> issue of unnecessary dating of events, where such
>> events are uniquely enough referenced and titled to
>> warrant more common terms. There are thousands of
>> cases where we use the common term instead of a more
>> official term, so why then is there a persistence in
>> using a unique standard using titles prefaced with a
>> date?
>>
> The problem is that it isn't always agreed when something is "uniquely
> enough referenced and titled to warrant more common terms", especially
> taking a historical view. Many news organizations today speak of the
> "London terrorist attacks", for example, but obviously Wikipedia needs
> to use a more specific article title since there have been multiple
> London terrorist attacks over the years.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
> From:
> "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:27:48 -0400
> To:
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To:
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
>
>> From: "Zachary Harden" <zscout370(a)hotmail.com>
>>
>> Well, personally, this is going to fail. Not because of their lack of
>> tech skills, nor from lack of users.
>
>
> I think it would be more likely to fail due to the many obvious
> failings of its proponents. See, for example, the posts of
> JohnJoyTree in that thread, the only one there who appears to have a
> clue.
>
> Jay.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
> From:
> Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
> Date:
> Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:32:31 -0700
> To:
> arkady(a)arkady.org.uk, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
> To:
> arkady(a)arkady.org.uk, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>
>
> Arkady Rose stated for the record:
>
>> What had me giggling was the line about 'the term "Wiki" refers to
>> "Wicca"' - these guys really do not have a clue about what a wiki really
>> is or the origins of the word, do they? Heh. So next will we be accused
>> of secretly running a coven? Oh, no, wait - don't tell me, that's the
>> Secret Cabal of Administrators, right?
>
>
> There are twelve of us on the ArbComm, and Jimbo makes thirt-- oh,
> wait, I shouldn't have said that. THERE ARE NO SECRET MEMBERS OF THE
> CABAL. FNORD.
>
> Crap. Now I'm going to have to use the Orbital Mind Control Lasers to
> erase their knowledge of the Secret 33rd-Degree Arbiters....
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
I don't think we should make a formal distinction between launching personal attacks on wikipedians
and speaking about destroying wikipedia on wikipedia talk pages and doing so offsite. We have acted
in the past in the case of VfDs when proponents or opponents go onto offsite message boards to
recruit people to vote one way or another. If we were to be formalistic and say that nothing that
happens off of wikipedia should impact on our decisions we will make it much more difficult to
maintain the encyclopedia.
Yes, Amalekite has said on Stormfront that their intent is to promote a Nazi POV in his editing but until
he explicitly says so on a wikipedia talk page we have to wait before we act? Should we wait weeks for
a pattern to develop when we have evidence offsite of what Amalekite is trying to do? Why should we
restrict our survey of the evidence in this way?
> We could ban him then. Is there any particular hurry?
> Why don't we
> wait until he does something wrong and then ban him?
This isn't just one lone wacko. It's an attempt to organize a large scale attack on wikipedia. We can
wait for weeks or months until each and every one of these neo-Nazis has established a pattern of
behaviour, but by then we'll have dozens, or even more than a hundred, cases to deal with. If you read
what Amalekite is saying on Stormfront it is clear he is instructing neo-Nazis in how to "play the game"
in order to draw things out as long as possible and do as much damage as possible. There's no need
for us to work according to his needs and play the game he wants us to play.
Amalekite has made his intentions explictly clear. We'd be fools to pretend we don't know what we
know and not act on it just because he stated his intentions on Stormfront instead of on a wikipedia
Talk page.
Homey