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(a)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(a)heh.ca>
X-X-Sender: _khl(a)tornado.he.net
To: toby(a)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(a)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(a)wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!