Danny wrote title "Can we ban 172 now" appear countless times as an email header. That was mischief-making. __This list__ (which would be the 'we' in question) is a discussion forum, and has no power to ban anyone. I was away through this episode, and find the way it was initiated very distasteful. (Though everyone on WP should stay within the rules.) Charles

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote: I've been busy with work for the last few days, & there are probably better issues I should address, but seeing this statement from Daniwo has made me angry. 172 is consistently rude to anyone whom he does not consider his intellectual equal, & especially to those who hold a contrary opinon contrary to his. I know this because I have crossed paths with him several times, & every time he has shown himself to be an intellectual bully, more intent in proving that he is right than in the Wikipedia process of debate, mutual respect, & the goal of a Neutral Point of View. Allow me to document these exchanges: 1. A few months after I started contributing to Wikipedia, when it was a much smaller world both in terms of articles & contributors, I decided to take a look at the Genocide article. I found it odd that the statements that the Soviet Union & the Chinese had engaged in genocide had been removed & replaced with long, opinionated rants by 172, who had added a section that asserted the rule of the Belgian Free Congo was very much an example. What I found odd about this was 172's arguments were that the deaths by the 2 communist regimes were not an intentional act: while of speciifc ethnicities people died, there was no intent to target them based on their ethnic background. However, as horrific as the tale of the Belgian Free Congo was, there is no evidence that the persons responsible intended the widespread murder _based_ on their ethnic identities. The issue was one of definition: genocide can be considered as a Crime against Humanity, yet not all Crimes against Humanity are acts of genocide. Admittedly, in popular usage the two terms become synonymous, yet I felt 172 was showing bad faith in applying the narrow definition only to the cases of the Communist countries, yet applying the looser one to the Belgium Congo: either all 3 cases are included, or all 3 cases are excluded. (Admittedly, my opinion is that we should hold to the narrow definition, otherwise we end up with a catalogue that includes every case of one nation subduing one or more other natins -- which is then the whole of history.) I expressed my opinions in the Talk page, & received this response for my pains (which appears at Talk:Llywrch): "First, I am not a Stalinist. Second, if I have to convince you of what happened in Central Africa or Southwest Africa, then you're ignorant. Third, if you are at all familiar with mainstream scholarship on Chinese history, then I wouldn't have to convince you that those Free Tibet charges are extremely questionable. Forth, I'm not here to advocate anything." An admission here: due to his dogged defence of the Soviet Union & China, I made the observation that he appeared to be the last believing Stalinist left -- an allusion to the fact that almost every 1930's Stalinist would infallibly defend every act of the Soviet Union, no matter how plausible, clearly documented, or wrong, while simultaneously emphasising every mistake or crime of Capitalism, the United States, etc. Perhaps I was the first person to apply this label to 172; but I am amazed that he still rants about this off-hand comment over a year & ahalf later. The whole exchange ended badly: no matter what was said, 172 would not concede that there was a contradiction, & proved very inflexible. Some of made fun of him for this inflexibility, lacking any better course for conflict resolution. I finally decided that since Wikipedia had so many areas in need of material, that it was just wiser to avoid 172 & hope that he matured, & learned how to engage in a constructive dialogue. 2. 172 nominated [[J�rgen Habermas]] as a Featured article, & I expressed the opinion that it did not qualify because the article was full of jargon & buzzwords & failed to explain his philosophy in a manner that could be understood by a layman. He responded that as it was a technical topic, the average layman should not expect to understand it -- yet it should be a Featured Article, a claim that led to a spirited exchange mentioned elsewhere. I attempted to set forth an explanation why I felt the article was too technical & jargon-laded, which appears in the Talk page to [[J�rgen Habermas]]. However, 172 has not ssen fit to respond to my criticism, nor even acknowledge its existence. I hope that someone can use it to make this article more understandable. 3. About a month ago, 172 was listed at Quickvotes as possibly having done something deserving a ban. The usual accusations & counter accusations wer exchanged until 172 announced that he would leave Wikipedia shortly because of his treatment -- once he had finished a couple of thing. Then he decided that was not enough, & started throwing the "fuck" word around, as in "fuck you" to one poster, & "I'll leave when I fucking decide to leave" to another poster. For a person who claims to be very educated, & literate he seems to have a problem finding the acceptible language to express himself. The specific passages are at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AQuickpolls&diff=… Having sysop priviliges, I would have banned him for that rudeness; but if he was truly going, doing so would only provide him with another excuse to linger around & share what obscenities he knew. So I let him off, yet he didn't leave. Because of that, I doubt he'll live up to his promise of leaving Wikipedia he made last night. All of these incidents follow the same pattern: 172 asserts something that is challenged, he repeats his reasons, he ignores any kind of rational input from the other party (e.g., authorities quoted, logical arguments, etc.), he starts getting nasty, & finally threatens to leave -- but stays. Can contributing to a project where many of the other contributors are unworthy of respect be worth contributing to? Can this project be so unimportant it's not worth the effort to respect other contributors? And how can the answer be anything but no to both? In conclusion, 172 does not have the personality to be on Wikipedia. I feel that whenever he makes an edit, there are only 3 choices left to the other party: agree with him; avoid him; or get ready for a nasty flamewar. My experience with him has negatively affected how I deal with new contributors: I can never be sure if the next person I have a disagreement with will treat me with the contempt 172 is always ready to hand out. And I suspect that there are dozens more people like me either currently on Wikipedia, or who have left because of 172's arrogance. Geoff