[WikiEN-l] Fwd: wiki upset

Wed Jul 16 14:36:38 UTC 2003

The below cmplaint by an unfairly banned and wiped
user -- as first reported by Jt is exactly why the
notion of jumping to revert someones edits merely
based on a whirly notion of a slight resemblance to
someone banned -- is a bad idea, was a bad idea, and
will forever be a bad idea.

In light of this basic fact, that any edits can only
can judged on its own merits,  that only true
vandalism is truly identifiable, and that more tactful
approaches are always necessary for dealing with
anyone outside of the category of "vandal. To do
otherwise would be to continue asserting a
misconception that would lead to the loss of  more
good (but misguided) editors. ( This is not to say
that we shouldnt trail someone if we're suspicious of
them -- thats half the fun of the 'Pedia.)

--S---

--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> I received this recently in my personal email
> (I have further comments below):
> 
> ----- Forwarded message -----
> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: _KhlER3L <_khl at heh.ca>
> X-X-Sender: _khl at tornado.he.net
> To: toby at math.ucr.edu
> Subject: wiki upset
> 
> Hello toby,
> 
> I'm sorry to email this to you since it has nothing
> to do with you, but
> finding contact information for the person I
> actually want to talk to
> seems to be impossible.
> 
> This evening, I fell upon Wikipedia for the first
> time in maybe a year,
> and began to make some edits I thought useful.  The
> first of which was to
> add to the [[gay]] definition a note that gay could
> only be used to
> describe androphiles, and not pederasts.  I admit
> this was a smarmy
> entry, but it was not offensive, and it contained
> links to additional
> information.
> 
> My next entry was
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA_Purges
> which attempted to outline, via a chronology, the
> events which lead upto
> the purges of minority groups from the International
> Gay and Lesbian
> Association.  Admittedly, it ended on a bitter note.
>  However, the bulk of
> the entry, some 10 or 15 paragraphs, were neutral
> and informative.
> 
> I then added a page on 'pederast', which said 'A man
> who is sexually
> attracted to boys aged 12-18.'
> 
> I then edited the NAMBLA page to remove the name of
> an individual, as well
> as make the wording more neutral.  I went on to read
> and respond to a
> 'discuss this page' entry which described NAMBLA as
> a COINTELPRO operation
> of the government in order to discredit the gay
> movement.
> 
> I finally went to edit a user page, _KhlER3L.  When
> I went to save it, I
> found out I was IP banned:
> 
> User is blocked
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> 
> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by
> Jtdirl. The reason given
> is this:
> This user is almost certainly DW again. He is
> revisiting paedophile and
> pederast links he added or edited again before his
> last banning and is
> from the same IP as he once used before.
> 
> You may contact Jtdirl or one of the other
> administrators to discuss the
> block.
> 
> Return to Main Page.
> 
> Well, for his/her information, I am not 'DW'
> and I do not appreciate being IP banned simply for
> 'revisting paedophile
> and pederast links' (as if it were a crime).  I
> think that if I feel that
> the Wikipedia does not offer the right balance of
> information on these
> topics, then I should be free to add my information.
>  Apparently Jtdirl
> does not appreciate anyone espousing a believe
> contrary to his/her own
> about NAMBLA, pederasty and pedophlia, even though
> he/she is in no way an
> expert on such matters, having a PhD in Irish
> History.
> 
> Maybe in his/her
> expert opinion, the NAMBLA information page should
> be used to attack a
> particular individual by name?  I didn't think so,
> and edited the
> name out.  And I also felt that encyclopedic entries
> should not
> contain a totality of anti- views, but also attempt
> to be somewhat
> neutral.
> 
> And the Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for
> pederast, but instead forwards
> pederasty to pedophilia, a totally wrong
> attribution.  My pederast entry
> has been removed, probably by Jtdirl.  Why is a
> truthful, and
> to-the-point, no-bullshit entry being deleted?  I
> think I know the answer.
> 
> As well, my ILGA Purges entry, which contained about
> 15 paragraphs
> detailing the build up and aftermath of the ILGA
> Purges, was deleted
> entirely.  Again, I think I know the reason why.
> 
> Anyway, this ban goes against the rule of IP
> blocking which states:
> 
> <i>This is meant solely to discourage persistent
> junk edits. IP banning is
> not meant to be used against unpopular opinions.</i>
> 
> My contributions were not junk edits, or attempts to
> disrupt the Wikipedia
> service.  They were attempts at rectifying what I
> view as biased entries
> which serve mainly to attack minority groups and
> organizations without
> giving another perspective.
> 
> I ask that my IP be unbanned at the earliest
> possible moment, and that
> Jtdirl be reprimanded for unfairly banning a
> contributer based soley on
> the topic of the content he was offering.  Maybe
> Jtdirl should stop being
> the pedophile-content cop and keep to topics he/she
> has something to
> contribute to.
> 
> Thank you, Toby, for looking over this.  Please get
> back to me on whether
> or not Wikipedia will be reinstating my access.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Jason Garrison
> 
> _KhlER3L at heh.ca
> (514) 495-1421
> Montreal, Quebec
> http://heh.ca/
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> Note that both <heh.ca> and <tornado.he.net> (also
> in Received: headers)
> are in the 64.62.xxx.xxx IP range, the same range as
> the blocked IP.
> This IP edited a few articles, some with prior POV
> problems;
> and some of his edits introduced further POV
> problems.
> But this is understandable if the user is new, and
> correctable.
> Thus the question is whether Jtdirl's identification
> of him as DW is fair.
> I'm not very familiar with DW, so I'm not a good
> judge of this;
> I ask other users that are familiar with DW to
> review the case.
> 
> I sent _KhlER3L a reply briefly explaining the
> situation with DW,
> and assuring him that Jtdirl's actions were
> motivated by those problems,
> not by any desire to be "the pedophile-content cop".
> I can post this email and _KhlER3L's further replies
> if you like.
> 
> 
> -- Toby
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com