Desysoping

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Censorship, really?

Differences between POV forks and...

Jack Lutz

19 Feb 2005 19 Feb '05

9:41 a.m.

How is one to call for a sysop have their privileges removed for blocking? RfC, the first step, states that "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." I'm not sure my complaint applies. It is that sysop Ta bu shi da yu blocked user NSM88 in violation of the blocking policy. This may be called "resolved" (I'm not sure) because NSM88 has been subsequently unblocked(?). But regardless, I consider TBSDY's actions to be an abuse of the blocking policy and would like to move for his administrator privileges to be removed. I see ArbCom has rejected a number of cases for not going through RfC. How am I to do this under RfC's terms? Dispute resolution against sysops is currently very, very slim. It should be easier to lose administrator privileges--and these are privileges--than to gain them. I cannot find any information on the consequences of out-of-policy blocks, and Blocking_policy's coverage of ethics consists only of "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Does that cover personal attacks or threats? Is a sysop permitted to declare text of a user with whom they are in conflict a threat and summarily block them? Yes, I'm talking about TBSDY and User:SS-88 in that case. Originally posted to Wikipedia-l, repost here after suitability complaint. [[w:User:119]]

Show replies by date

Christopher Larberg

19 Feb 19 Feb

10:09 a.m.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:41:41 -0600, Jack Lutz <jack-lutz(a)comcast.net> wrote:

...

If you and another user have a dispute over an administrator's actions, file it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administ…. --Slowking Man

Charles Matthews

10:10 a.m.

Jack Lutz wrote

...

Dispute resolution against sysops is currently very, very slim. It should

be easier to lose administrator privileges--and these are privileges--than to gain them. Shouldn't that be resolution of disputes _with_ sysops? AFAIK we are all still on the same side. If I can rephrase the second sentence, you think that admins should be deprived of their status by some process than is simpler than their election - which is a community vote by logged-in folk. Well, taking them off the list is easy enough. It should happen, occasionally, I agree. It should probably happen to any admin who no longer is generally trusted by the community. How is one supposed to judge that, other than another poll? If the problem is egregious abuse of powers, that is another question, I think. Charles

Jack Lutz

10:52 a.m.

...

Shouldn't that be resolution of disputes _with_ sysops? AFAIK we are all still on the same side.

Kind of. "If you don't like what I did, tough." Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ray Saintonge

20 Feb 20 Feb

1:21 a.m.

Charles Matthews wrote:

...

Jack Lutz wrote

Dispute resolution against sysops is currently very, very slim. It should

There should be more to becoming a sysop than a vote. The same can be said for the de-sysopping process. The poll can be give a sense of the community, but it may be of only that part of the community which is keenly interested in such matters, and that carries the risk that some group of users with a specific POV can highjack the process. A bureaucrat should be able to occasionally act against the clear will of the community. But if he does so he better have a good reason, and be prepared to defend that position. Ec

Theresa Knott

19 Feb 19 Feb

10:52 a.m.

You want TBSDY desysopped because he blocked SS-88 after he said this: "You consider the right side of the fence to be on the side of the haters. You call us stupid, but you should know that we have a log of your hatred and abuse of "power" against one of our comrades. THAT WAS STUPID! Your actions have been documented and have, so far, been circulated to thousands of aryans who do not look kindly on your type of hatred. You know what happens to people who ignore history....... 88 !!" I refer you to the blocking policy: "Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a case a ban for a period of time may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. " This looks like a pretty straightforward case to me.

...

of "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged

in conflict." Does that cover personal attacks or threats? Is a sysop permitted to declare text of a user with whom they are in conflict a threat and summarily block them? The reasoning behind this is so that an admin cannot use their powers to win against an anon admin when they are in a revert war. This is not the case here. Although it would have probably been wiser for TBSDY to ask another admin to block SS-88 for making the above threat I cannot see how it could have been considered an abuse of admin powers. Theresa

Tony Sidaway

11:15 a.m.

I've been watching this guy's edits, but my lack of knowledge of the complexities of Turkish and Kurdish history make it difficult for me to judge them without further research. He does seem to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about Kurdish nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coolcat He says he will be "policing" the following articles: Kurds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds Kurdistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan Kurdistan Workers Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan Workers Party Abdullah Öcalan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah Öcalan Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey Mustafa Kemal Atatürk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa Kemal Atatürk StarCraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft String theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String theory Graviton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Nicholas Knight

11:26 a.m.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

[...]

...

StarCraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft

Good grief. Just out of curiousity I took a look at this one. He's been reverting out perfectly reasonable edits and calling them vandalism. Also, have a look at his user page, especially his "Things NOT to do" speil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coolcat#Things_NOT_to_do: Somebody needs to sit this guy down. I'm going to jump into the Starcraft article tomorrow after I get some sleep and maybe straighten this guy out, but I ain't looking forward to it.

Tony Sidaway

12:57 p.m.

Nicholas Knight said:

...

StarCraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft

I think he's more reasonable that you might think at first sight. For instance he reverted someone's change today on "Kurdistan" but later reverted his own edit in favor of the version he had reverted "untill issue is resolved, see talk." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan&curid=80777&act… This looks to me like a newbie still findng his feet; he probably has the makings of a good editor, so let's not frighten him off.

Pete/Pcb21

1:19 p.m.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

Nicholas Knight said: >>StarCraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft > >Good grief. Just out of curiousity I took a look at this one. He's been > reverting out perfectly reasonable edits and calling them vandalism. > >Also, have a look at his user page, especially his "Things NOT to do" >speil: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coolcat#Things_NOT_to_do: > >Somebody needs to sit this guy down. >

...

I checked out [[Ataturk]], always a likely hotspot for edit wars, and his work there in trying to drag the two sides (those that say he was a murderous dictator and those that hold him in almost iconic status) towards a NPOV solution seems pretty good. A little abrasive perhaps, but we tend to put up with that. NB StarCruft seems to have undergone some refactoring recently so perhaps maybe there was just a bit of a cockup rather than malice?

Anthere

11:51 a.m.

Theresa Knott a écrit:

...

The reasoning behind this is so that an admin cannot use their powers to win against an anon admin when they are in a revert war. This is not the case here. Although it would have probably been wiser for TBSDY to ask another admin to block SS-88 for making the above threat I cannot see how it could have been considered an abuse of admin powers. Theresa

Non making any comment on whether the person should be unsysoped or not unsysoped, I think that as soon as editors question the action of a sysop or not, it is worth listening and considering. That means there must be a clear process where editors can put their complaint against a sysop and express their wish that this editor is removed from sysophood. It is important that if there is no more trust from a sizeable number of editors, sysophood is removed. I wonder if the simplest thing is not that as soon as a sizeable number of people doubt that a person should stay a sysop, the process could be simply that these users should be reconfirmed in their sysop status. Make it a vote just of the same type of the vote to become of sysop. If a reasonable number of support is obtained the person stay a sysop, if not, removed. The only thing you need to do is that the initial request is made by a trusted person, to avoid trolling. There is an easy way to do this : have it a requirement that listing the person on the admin/deadmin list be made by a sysop himself. Ant

Karl A. Krueger

5:05 p.m.

On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:51:46PM +0100, Anthere wrote:

...

Non making any comment on whether the person should be unsysoped or not unsysoped, I think that as soon as editors question the action of a sysop or not, it is worth listening and considering.

I think TBSDY's actions here were entirely justified. As soon as an editor makes threats against another editors, the threatener needs to be taken off the project. The alternative is to let the situation fester, ruining articles and eventually leading to us seeing an article on Wikinews entitled, "Encyclopedia editor killed by online stalker". Nonetheless ...

...

There is an easy way to do this : have it a requirement that listing the person on the admin/deadmin list be made by a sysop himself.

There is a model wherein privileges are conferred upon persons in recognition of innate virtues, and it is presumed that whatever these persons care to do with those privileges, they will do so in ways conformant to those innate virtues. The commoners are not deemed competent to judge the privileged: only a peer can judge a peer. This is called aristocracy. There is another model where responsibilities and the powers to carry them out are conferred upon persons deemed likely to do so correctly, but wherein those persons' actions are always subject to review. The people are (collectively) deemed competent to judge those thus empowered, and to remove them from office by due process of recall or simply by not re-electing them. This is called republicanism. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

Anthere

28 Feb 28 Feb

1:43 a.m.

HI sorry to answer so late, but I was away for the week, and I think I needed to add a very important point to your answer Karl. Karl A. Krueger a écrit:

...

On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:51:46PM +0100, Anthere wrote:

...

There is an easy way to do this : have it a requirement that listing the person on the admin/deadmin list be made by a sysop himself.

This is not why I proposed it. The real (unfortunate truth) is that if anyone is allowed to begin a request for desysoping a person, there will be a real mess as in particular trolls will rush start such pages. So, when I suggest that only sysops be allowed to do this, I rather rely on the fact that if a complaint seems reasonable, there will always be a sysop to support it and open a page for comment. Maybe I am being too optimistic on this... :-) But generally, when someone shows me a sysop did something weird, I am the first one to potentially support the complainer. But well, something similar could be obtained I supposed by accepting a request as potentially valid as soon as at least 3 people approved it. Now, I fear that 3 trolls could unite... So, the only thing that really happen is that in spite of abuse sometimes, desysoping is rarely done at all.

...

There is another model where responsibilities and the powers to carry them out are conferred upon persons deemed likely to do so correctly, but wherein those persons' actions are always subject to review. The people are (collectively) deemed competent to judge those thus empowered, and to remove them from office by due process of recall or simply by not re-electing them. This is called republicanism.

This is called the arbitration committee :-) Ant PS : by the way, about a year ago, I proposed a process on meta about sysops. First, an inactive sysop is removed from sysop list. Second, any sysop must be confirmed every year. This process was accepted and is currently working.

Jack Lutz

19 Feb 19 Feb

7:07 p.m.

...

You want TBSDY desysopped because he blocked SS-88 after he said this:

No, I didn't say that, I only asked about his involvement with SS-88 and recusal. I think TBSDY should be desysoped for blocking a user (NSM88) with a justification of "Nazi. Literally", i.e. blocking for a user's political views.

Theresa Knott

7:39 p.m.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:07:02 -0600, Jack Lutz <jack-lutz(a)comcast.net> wrote:

...

I think TBSDY should be desysoped for blocking a user (NSM88) with a justification of "Nazi. Literally", i.e. blocking for a user's political views.

If TBSDY had reblocked, after NSM88 had been unblocked then you might have a point. We can't IMO go around desysopping someone because they made one decision which we disagree with. If we did that we would have no admins left! Everyone is entitled to make a mistake now and then, even admins. A pattern of such blockings would be a different matter. Dispute resolution requires that the first step should be talk. There was plenty of talk on WP:AN/I at the time. Theresa

Jack Lutz

7:53 p.m.

...

Everyone is entitled to make a mistake now and then, even admins.

TBSDY did not restore the wrong version of a disputed article or accidentally block a proxy, he used his sysop privileges to block a user whose views he does not agree with. That is not a mistake, that is abuse.

David Gerard

20 Feb 20 Feb

12:31 a.m.

Jack Lutz (jack-lutz(a)comcast.net) [050220 06:52]:

...

> Everyone is entitled to make a mistake now and then, > even admins.

...

I note your objection appears not to be gaining traction. Can you suggest why that might be? - d.

Rick

12:04 a.m.

--- Jack Lutz <jack-lutz(a)comcast.net> wrote:

...

You want TBSDY desysopped because he blocked

SS-88 after he said this: No, I didn't say that, I only asked about his involvement with SS-88 and recusal. I think TBSDY should be desysoped for blocking a user (NSM88) with a justification of "Nazi. Literally", i.e. blocking for a user's political views.

So you think it's appropriate to have a User name with 88 in it (coded for "Heil Hitler") and to post a photo allegedly of themself in a Nazi uniform? RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

Delirium

12:16 a.m.

Rick wrote:

...

So you think it's appropriate to have a User name with 88 in it (coded for "Heil Hitler") and to post a photo allegedly of themself in a Nazi uniform?

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent. -Mark

Christopher Larberg

12:25 a.m.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent.

So we should refrain from blocking such accounts even when neo-Nazi groups have threatened to foist their POV upon Wikipedia? --Slowking Man

Delirium

12:37 a.m.

Christopher Larberg wrote:

...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent.

So we should refrain from blocking such accounts even when neo-Nazi groups have threatened to foist their POV upon Wikipedia?

Yes. There have been discussions on anti-circumcision mailing lists about recruiting people to foist their POV upon Wikipedia, and yet we don't ban anti-circumcision activists on sight. That's just how things work. -Mark

Ray Saintonge

2:49 a.m.

Christopher Larberg wrote:

...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent.

So we should refrain from blocking such accounts even when neo-Nazi groups have threatened to foist their POV upon Wikipedia?

The question was about a coded user name, and a picture on a user page. Jumping from that to blocking accounts for foisting a POV is illogical. Ec

Rick

12:44 a.m.

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Rick wrote:

So you think it's appropriate to have a User name

with

88 in it (coded for "Heil Hitler") and to post a

photo

allegedly of themself in a Nazi uniform?

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent. -Mark

So if I created a Username of [[User:KillAllTheJews]] it would be accpetable to you? RickK __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

BJörn Lindqvist

1:10 a.m.

...

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent. -Mark

So if I created a Username of [[User:KillAllTheJews]] it would be accpetable to you?

Who has created such an account? And no it would not be acceptable to me because inciting hatred is a crime and because "trollish" usernames are not allowed. However, this guys nick was MSN88 which I think few would have noticed unless someone had told people that 88 in nazi speak means Heil Hitler. If I hadn't knew, I would have guessed it meant that he was 16 years old. (insert famous quote from voltaire about freedom of speech here) etc. -- mvh Björn

Rick

5:43 a.m.

--- BJ�rn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Of course. There are plenty of people here who

hold

beliefs that many other people find abhorrent. -Mark

So if I created a Username of

[[User:KillAllTheJews]]

it would be accpetable to you?

Who has created such an account?

NSM88, SS-88 and SS88.

...

And no it would not be acceptable to me because inciting hatred is a crime and because "trollish" usernames are not allowed. However, this guys nick was MSN88 which I think few would have noticed unless someone had told people that 88 in nazi speak means Heil Hitler. If I hadn't knew, I would have guessed it meant that he was 16 years old. (insert famous quote from voltaire about freedom of speech here) etc.

And so then you go to his User page, you see that he has a picture of himself in full Nazi regalia, you read that he's an officer in a Nazi organization, but yet that's all perfeclty acceptable because you, personally, don't understand the meaning of the name? RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com

Ray Saintonge

3:01 a.m.

Rick wrote:

...

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

Rick wrote:

So you think it's appropriate to have a User name with 88 in it (coded for "Heil Hitler") and to post a photo allegedly of themself in a Nazi uniform?

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent. -Mark

So if I created a Username of [[User:KillAllTheJews]] it would be accpetable to you?

There's a big difference between an overtly racist name and one which uses a code that the majority will never recognize as such. "Heil Hitler" may very well be mapped into "88", but the reverse is not true. Should the hypothetical [[User:Piano88]] be immediately condemned for being a Nazi. We can't hold the number system hostage in that way. Ec

Zoney

1:18 a.m.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Rick wrote:

So you think it's appropriate to have a User name with 88 in it (coded for "Heil Hitler") and to post a photo allegedly of themself in a Nazi uniform?

Of course. There are plenty of people here who hold beliefs that many other people find abhorrent. -Mark

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society. This whole debate is a nonsense (it damn well should be acceptable to block someone on sight for being a Nazist) and only serving to further disillusion me as to the complete lack of any controls which many Wikipedians' are advocating. I do not want to be associated with something that has no standards whatsoever. But we'll see how things go - either Wikipedia will get its act together or we will get bad publicity from some of the awful stuff allowed on at the moment, and people will stop coming here. I mean really - if someone was to trawl through wiki right now for the stuff not palatable to the mainstream - mail it all to a bunch of magazines - would Wikipedia EVER be respected by anyone but a small group of liberals? Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Nicholas Knight

1:21 a.m.

Zoney wrote:

...

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

There are actions which are unacceptable in civilised society. Any society that holds a given view/opinion to be unacceptable is not civilised.

Zoney

2:53 p.m.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:21:49 -0800, Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:

...

Zoney wrote:

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

There are actions which are unacceptable in civilised society. Any society that holds a given view/opinion to be unacceptable is not civilised.

No, rather than just actions, the expressing of such views is also unacceptable. Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Sean Barrett

5:12 p.m.

Zoney stated for the record:

...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:21:49 -0800, Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:

Zoney wrote:

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

There are actions which are unacceptable in civilised society. Any society that holds a given view/opinion to be unacceptable is not civilised.

No, rather than just actions, the expressing of such views is also unacceptable. Zoney

If you want to hang out with us, you are required to accept our right to express such views. -- Sean Barrett | Modern art is what happens when painters stop sean(a)epoptic.com | looking at girls and persuade themselves | that they have a better idea. --John Ciardi

Zoney

21 Feb 21 Feb

12:02 a.m.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:12:42 -0800, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:

...

Zoney stated for the record:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:21:49 -0800, Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:

Zoney wrote:

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

There are actions which are unacceptable in civilised society. Any society that holds a given view/opinion to be unacceptable is not civilised.

No, rather than just actions, the expressing of such views is also unacceptable. Zoney

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views. I don't intend running the risk of being judged to have abused admin powers by quashing a Nazist user (e.g. by blocking for no specific reason), but nevertheless I will support those who do take a hard line on this and other issues. Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept. Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Tony Sidaway

12:10 a.m.

Zoney said:

...

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.

Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you. We don't do advocacy but we do give expression to all significant views.>

...

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept.

Is this a plural "you"? I think you will find that your view can also be expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia. We adopt the neutral point of view here.

Zoney

12:19 a.m.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:10:52 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

...

Zoney said:

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.

Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you. We don't do advocacy but we do give expression to all significant views.>

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept.

Is this a plural "you"? I think you will find that your view can also be expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia. We adopt the neutral point of view here.

No we don't give expression to all significant views. We write about them - but we don't attempt to get the reader to emphasise with them. Possibly one or both of us have merely mis-interpreted the others meaning. I am in no way suggesting that Nazism shouldn't be written about down to the last detail in Wikipedia. (Any sensible person will see it for what it is, just as with [[Xenu]]). But I do not consider that people should be allowed to express a Nazi POV on Wikipedia (not just in articles - but generally speaking) or anywhere else. Oh - and could you dispense with the condescending attitude? Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Zoney

12:20 a.m.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:19:36 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:10:52 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

Zoney said:

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.

Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you. We don't do advocacy but we do give expression to all significant views.>

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept.

Is this a plural "you"? I think you will find that your view can also be expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia. We adopt the neutral point of view here.

No we don't give expression to all significant views. We write about them - but we don't attempt to get the reader to emphasise with them.

That should read "empathise" of course. -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Richard Holton

1:12 a.m.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:20:45 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:19:36 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:10:52 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

Zoney said:

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.

Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you. We don't do advocacy but we do give expression to all significant views.>

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept.

Is this a plural "you"? I think you will find that your view can also be expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia. We adopt the neutral point of view here.

No we don't give expression to all significant views. We write about them - but we don't attempt to get the reader to emphasise with them.

That should read "empathise" of course.

No, we _do_ give expression of all significant views -- or at least that is the objective, inasmuch as we give expression to any view. Of course we don't attempt to get the reader to empathize with _any_ POV. That is contrary to NPOV. There is a distinct difference between allowing a Neo-Nazi to contribute, and allowing any article to have a Neo-Nazi POV. As I see it, the best possible "weapon" to use against any extreme POV on Wikipedia is to let people who support that POV contribute, hold them to the rules, and beat their POV to a pulp with the well-documented facts. Sometimes we may actually find ourselves ceding a point where the documented facts support their view. How is that bad? -Rich Holton en.wikipedia:User:Rholton

Nicholas Knight

2:34 a.m.

Zoney wrote:

...

No we don't give expression to all significant views. We write about

Yes, we do. It's _exactly_ what we do. Please consult a dictionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Express http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=express

JAY JG

4:29 p.m.

...

From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>

...

Zoney said:

Nope. I will not accept anyone's right to express Nazi views.

Wikipedia is probably the wrong place for you. We don't do advocacy but we do give expression to all significant views.>

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept.

Is this a plural "you"? I think you will find that your view can also be expressed, but not advocated on Wikipedia. We adopt the neutral point of view here.

Is that the royal "we"? ;-) Jay.

Tony Sidaway

4:36 p.m.

JAY JG said:

...

Is that the royal "we"? ;-)

Touché! I apologise for getting all snooty there.

Delirium

2:26 a.m.

Zoney wrote:

...

Seemingly though, you find it unacceptable for me to have the view that some views are unacceptable. Evidently there are limits to what views even you can accept.

I accept that you have that view, but I oppose your acting on it. That is, you can think as your personal opinion that Nazis really should be blocked on site, and that's your prerogative, but I oppose you actually taking action to do so. That seems consistent with the position the "free speech" side has been taking. You can think whatever you want, even if I strongly disagree with it, but when you start putting it into practice then I may well oppose you. Similarly, nobody is arguing that Nazis have a right to turn [[Jew]] into a propaganda piece; to engage in endless revert wars; or to do any of the other things against general Wikipedia policies. If they try to do so, they'll be banned for that, just like any other POV-pusher would be; there's no need to have special policies explicitly for Nazis, when the problems they pose are exactly those any other POV pusher poses. -Mark

Rick

7:54 p.m.

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Similarly, nobody is arguing that Nazis have a right to turn [[Jew]] into a propaganda piece; to engage in endless revert wars; or to do any of the other things against general Wikipedia policies. If they try to do so, they'll be banned for that, just like any other POV-pusher would be; there's no need to have special policies explicitly for Nazis, when the problems they pose are exactly those any other POV pusher poses.

However they are arguing that displaying Nazi symbols, using offensive Nazi User names and making death threats are not bannable offenses. RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Richard Holton

9:04 p.m.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:54:56 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

However they are arguing that displaying Nazi symbols, using offensive Nazi User names and making death threats are not bannable offenses. RickK

While I have not read every word of every message on this thread, I am unaware of anyone suggesting that making a death threat is not a bannable offense. There has been some discussion over whether a particular posting actually constituted a death threat, but that is another issue entirely. Let us all try to be fair in representing others' views. -- en.wikipedia:User:Rholton

Rick

10:37 p.m.

--- Richard Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

However they are arguing that displaying Nazi

symbols,

using offensive Nazi User names and making death threats are not bannable offenses. RickK

It is impossible to interpret the comments left on TBSDY's page as anything but a death threat. RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Delirium

9:06 p.m.

Rick wrote:

...

However they are arguing that displaying Nazi symbols, using offensive Nazi User names and making death threats are not bannable offenses.

No, we are only arguing the first two of those. -Mark

Rick

10:39 p.m.

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Rick wrote:

However they are arguing that displaying Nazi

symbols,

using offensive Nazi User names and making death threats are not bannable offenses.

No, we are only arguing the first two of those. -Mark

But when TBSDY blocked the person for making a death threat on his page, the block was reverted. Would you allow someone to have a picture of a black person being lynched on their page? RickK __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Richard Holton

22 Feb 22 Feb

1:54 a.m.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:39:03 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

Rick wrote:

However they are arguing that displaying Nazi

symbols,

using offensive Nazi User names and making death threats are not bannable offenses.

No, we are only arguing the first two of those. -Mark

But when TBSDY blocked the person for making a death threat on his page, the block was reverted. Would you allow someone to have a picture of a black person being lynched on their page? RickK

That is a good question, and worthy of some thought. My gut reaction is that any depiction of an actual act of murder (or attempted murder) falls outside of what is appropriate for a use page. A parallel question: Would we allow someone to have a frame from Nick Berg's murder/execution on their home page? Again, I think not. We would allow someone to have the famous photo of a G.I. holding a pistol to a civilian's head (Viet Nam era) on their home page? The question seems to get a bit more cloudy. Perhaps a more relevant question is: Would we allow a photo of a Ku-Klux-Klan member wearing obvious identification of membership on their home page? I think that we probably should. For some people in the world, a US Army uniform may inspire fear or terror as real as that of any holocaust survivor. Should we deny their fear/terror? Should we ban such pictures form home pages? How about someone in a Japanese military uniform? The Japanese are not without a history of atrocities...think of World War II. Not as widespread and systematic as what the Nazi's perpetrated, but can we deny the pain and fear of those survivors or relatives? How about a picture of a person wearing gang colors? None of these are intended as straw men. They are serious questions that deserve some careful thought. I conclude (my own opinion) that, if there are to be any restrictions on pictures on user pages, they would have to be based on some well-defined principles that can be applied objectively. -Rich Holton en.wikipedia:User:Rholton

Rick

5:21 a.m.

--- Richard Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:39:03 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > --- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: > > > Rick wrote:

...

Would you allow someone to have a picture of a

black

person being lynched on their page? RickK

That is a good question, and worthy of some thought.

...

Perhaps a more relevant question is: Would we allow a photo of a Ku-Klux-Klan member wearing obvious identification of membership on their home page? I think that we probably should.

That was going to be my followup question. I don't see how we can allow such thing. Even on User pages. We would have to allow swastikas. I have a hammer and sickle on my page, which was awarded to me and I've left it there. Is anyone offended by it (besides the anon who called me a Communist for having it there)? RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Nicholas Knight

5:48 a.m.

Rick wrote:

...

That was going to be my followup question. I don't see how we can allow such thing. Even on User pages. We would have to allow swastikas.

I think the question needs to be asked as to why we don't allow swastikas on user pages. I don't neccessarily think we should, but the argument should probably be articulated.

...

I have a hammer and sickle on my page, which was awarded to me and I've left it there. Is anyone offended by it (besides the anon who called me a Communist for having it there)?

I don't think the hammer and sickle has anywhere near the same effect today as the swastika does. It's a fairly generic symbol for communism, and communism, despite the actions of Stalin, is a far cry from nazism.

Delirium

2:05 p.m.

Rick wrote:

...

I have a hammer and sickle on my page, which was awarded to me and I've left it there. Is anyone offended by it (besides the anon who called me a Communist for having it there)?

I rarely get offended but anything at all, so neither swastikas nor hammers and sickles bother me, but I'd say they both bother me about equally to the extent that they have any effect on me at all. Both are symbols of totalitarianism and state murder. (But symbols themselves never killed anyone, only the people who follow the symbols.) -Mark

Tony Sidaway

21 Feb 21 Feb

10:57 p.m.

New subject: Orwell

Thanks for whoever corrected that rubbish I wrote about the "drum of tea" in Clergyman's Daughter. It got lost in the mix today. JayJG? :) Whoever, I owe you mucho wikimoney come year end.

Delirium

20 Feb 20 Feb

1:33 a.m.

Zoney wrote:

...

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

And which, exactly, are those? Which civilised society? Is Wikipedia going to be on the business of deciding which views are acceptable and which aren't? Neo-Nazis have a particular ideology, which happens to be extremely unpopular. They are hardly the only ideology I personally find abhorrent; it's just the easiest to criticize. What about any of the following: -- Those who support attacks on Israeli civilians (e.g. terrorism) as a legitimate means of warfare. There are several tens of million people int he world who hold this viewpoint; are they all to be banned on sight? -- Those who support fascism as a political ideology, but do not support Nazism in particular. -- Those who support Maoism, Stalinism, or other "left-totalitarian" ideologies. If we're going to start banning certain ideologies on sight, someone needs to come up with criteria for how we decide which are unacceptable. -Mark

Richard Holton

2:35 a.m.

Without explicitly entering into the question of de-sysopping, let me once again voice my total support for what Mark is saying here. What in the world is the meaning of NPOV if we're going to be banning people based on their ideology, no matter how abhorrant? "We strive for a neutral point of view, unless your point of view happens to be X, in which case we are not at all neutral." Absolutely not. Banning users only on the basis of their POV -- not due to unacceptable behavior, but only due to their personal beliefs or opinions -- this is exactly contrary to a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Additionally, I would say that to ban any username containing"88" is surrendering far too much to the Neo-Nazis. Why should the world in general (or Wikipedia in specific) give up a perfectly good two digit number simply because the Neo-Nazis adopt it as "theirs"? How much power are we going to donate to the Neo-Nazi cause? -Rich Holton On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:33:05 -0500, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

Zoney wrote:

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

-- en.wikipedia:User:Rholton

Rick

5:56 a.m.

Shrug. You can all be as ivory-towerish as you want. But the Nazis are here, and they will return. And there is a policy about unacceptable user names. And the names I've listed are unacceptable, and other names of their ilk will be blocked. RickK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Sean Barrett

2:59 a.m.

Zoney stated for the record:

...

There are views which are unacceptable in civilised society.

Who, exactly, is going to publish the One True List of Unacceptable Views? I personally think that the view that "there are views which are unacceptable in civilised society" is unacceptable, and hereby call for the banning of anyone expressing such a view. -- Sean Barrett | Modern art is what happens when painters stop sean(a)epoptic.com | looking at girls and persuade themselves | that they have a better idea. --John Ciardi

Tony Sidaway

9:14 a.m.

Zoney said:

...

it damn well should be acceptable to block someone on sight for being a Nazist

Why? We'd lose all our neo-nazi editors if we did that.

Cool Hand Luke

12:12 p.m.

...

Zoney said:

it damn well should be acceptable to block someone on sight for being a Nazist

Why? We'd lose all our neo-nazi editors if we did that.

To quote you on forking Wikipedia: "that would be a bad thing?" But then, I do see some sort of argument for diversity. I'm strongly believe that trolls (proudly neo-Nazi or otherwise) should be blocked on sight, however.

Tony Sidaway

12:24 p.m.

Cool Hand Luke said:

...

Zoney said:

it damn well should be acceptable to block someone on sight for being a Nazist

Why? We'd lose all our neo-nazi editors if we did that.

I think we're in agreement. This guy was quickly identified as a troll; the name was borderline offensive and the nazi uniform picture sealed it.

Deathphoenix

22 Feb 22 Feb

2:43 a.m.

Rick wrote:

...

So you think it's appropriate to have a User name with 88 in it (coded for "Heil Hitler") and to post a photo allegedly of themself in a Nazi uniform? RickK

Although in this cases, it is clearly Nazi in nature (with the edits and photos to prove it), we should watch out before immediate judging other cases. Some people use 8s in their username (including 88) because it is the Chinese for good luck or fortune, and that the Buddhists use the reverse swastika! I saw a guy parked in a car with a rear-view mirror decoration adorned with what could easily be interpreted as a swastika.A friend of mine uses "88" in his username, but is Chinese. In fact, this mailing list is the first time I heard of the HH thing. Cheers, DPh

Delirium

20 Feb 20 Feb

12:14 a.m.

Theresa Knott wrote:

...

Well, TBSDY *was* involved in a bit of a revert-war on User:NSM88's user page, which TBSDY repeatedly vandalized. -mark

7029

days inactive

7038

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

57 comments

20 participants

tags (0)

participants (20)

Anthere
BJörn Lindqvist
Charles Matthews
Christopher Larberg
Cool Hand Luke
David Gerard
Deathphoenix
Delirium
Jack Lutz
JAY JG
Karl A. Krueger
Nicholas Knight
Pete/Pcb21
Ray Saintonge
Richard Holton
Rick
Sean Barrett
Theresa Knott
Tony Sidaway
Zoney