Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks

A new proposal has been written to allow admins to block people that make frequent personal attacks (but only if the admin is an uninvolved party). Please visit and give your comments. It is still in the discussion stage, so no voting please. Radiant_>|< 09:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger

I recently blocked a new user account indefinitely under this section of the policy: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Personal_attacks_which_place_users_in_danger. There has been some discussion on the mailing list about whether the block was justified, and someone suggested starting a discussion on a talk page instead. Rather than talking in detail about this particular user, it might be more beneficial to look at what kinds of situations this part of the policy covers. The case in point involved an editor, who arrived on Aug 17, posting a list of Wikipedians he believed were Jews to an anti-Semitic website. I felt this potentially exposed the people on the list to religious or ethnic persecution because of the nature of the website, and the fact that some of the user names were real names. HOTR blocked the user on Aug 19 indefinitely; Matt Crypto unblocked him on Aug 23; I reblocked him on Aug 23, because Matt hadn't discussed unblocking with the blocking admin. I felt the indefinite block was justified because the user had been here only two days before posting the list, which showed extreme bad faith in my view. Block log [1] here. Any input would be most welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

People have posted to stormfront and vnn calling for the murder of Jews. Thus, posting a list of the "chief Jews" at Wikipedia, as part of a series of postings calling for "recapturing" Wikipedia from the Jews, amounts to putting these people in danger. Blocking is the least we should consider. Guettarda 03:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Reading the thread that started this ([http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536], warning: neo-Nazi site) sends shivers down my spine; the cold-hearted rhetoric against "the enemy" leaves no room for doubt that these people exemplify the worst humanity has to offer when it comes to rational cooperation. Yet, if they hadn't been neo-Nazis, but any other extremist POV posting a list and calling for an edit spree on Wikipedia to stamp out some other extremist POV, would the account have been banned on this "endangering Wikipedians" provision? I doubt it. I'm sure calling for the death of your opponents is not an uncommon theme.

That said, there is no doubt in my mind that the block was a good idea. People with such POVs aren't capable of cooperating towards NPOV to begin with; they're naked POV pushers, and not ashamed to admit it, though they'll do their best to hide it. We're under no obligation to play good hosts until they abuse our trust. They set out to do that from the beginning. So, ignoring whether policy does or doesn't apply, I say the encyclopedia's better off. If you're not here to cooperate with others in writing an encyclopedia, "regardless of race, color or creed", you should go.

One thing I definitely do agree with is Matt's comment on the mailinglist: "I would argue that the blocking admin(s) would have done well to document exactly why this user was banned, complete with URLs, because it's darn hard to find the evidence." Only you can prevent blocking wars. Document why you do what you do before you do it, or people are going to undo it. "I'll take your word for it" doesn't work if the supporting material is all external to Wikipedia. JRM · Talk 03:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Shivers down your spine? I think we should all point and laugh, especially at the following:

Many of these articles are quite polished and have a tone of neutral objectivity and an air of authority (they are from an encyclopedia, after all, and everything written has "citations", so it must all be true!). That makes for *very* persuasive propaganda, in much the same way that the most effective indoctrination takes place under the guise of "education" in our schools and universities.

Pot, meet kettle. Perhaps they should follow their own advise (cf David Irving)?

I do notice there is a fair amount of whinging that their marginal views (which are easily disproven, and fail to stand under scrutiny) do not seem to get a fair hearing (it's a Jewish plot I tell you!) yet at the same time they would like to game the system themselves. If you notice that someone is adding neo-nazi propaganda in Wikipedia: demand sources, then refute as quickly as possible. It shouldn't be hard. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We're only here to write an encyclopedia. People who come here with other agendas are not needed as editors. In this instance, the editor made a very clear announcement that he intended to target certain users, and invited others on a violence-glorifying webforum to do the same. The only possible reason that I can see for not blocking this account is that it is now well-known and therefore easily checked. However that is a very small benefit when compared to the strongly implied threat. In reading over other posting to that forum, I see many users complain about how unwelcome they have felt here, and how quickly their edits are reverted. That is a reputation that I think we should uphold. The good editors of Wikipedia are capable of writing NPOV articles on Nazis. We don't need actual Nazis on staff in order to do so. (posted by Willmcw)

Where did Amalekite make this very clear announcement that he intended to target certain users, and invited others to do the same? On StormFront, I see him listing people that he believed to be part of a "Zionist cabal", but I don't see him saying that he intended to target people, nor encouraging others to do so. — Matt Crypto 09:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This was absolutely the right call. The simple fact, outside of all policy concerns, is that when somebody wants to overthrow the Zionist cabal running Wikipedia and lists the Elders of Wikipedia on a neo-Nazi site, and this is, I think, not a hard concept to grasp, we do not need them here. Snowspinner 04:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Permablock and ban the bastards forever! Did Matt Crypto go insane? These aren't like the POV pushers who start edit wars over BC/BCE, they're friggin nazis, for crying out loud. They're the ones who want to murder people who don't look like them, talk like them, those who aren't as stupid as them. Look, there is NPOV...and then there is agreeing that normal, intelligent, civilized members of the human race need not give any consideration to these vile children of hatred. I will block anyone who uses outright hate speech, anyone who advocates "race" violence, and I will sure as hell block anyone who represents a threat to the life and safety of Wikipedians. Func( t, c, @, ) 04:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I went insane long ago; I wouldn't worry about that. — Matt Crypto 08:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Amalekite aka Alex Linder's advice on the Stormfront site encouraging editors to violate policy by using anonymous proxies, and bragging of doing the same himself, is evidence enough of his intent to disrupt Wikipedia. However, when he put a list of Jews on the Stormfront website and encouraged Neo-nazis and White supremacists to target them, he was obviously (as outlined in the blocking policy) taking "actions outside the Wikipedia site which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others". Look at the responses to his post[2] on his Vanguard News Network, which also mentions Wikipedia editors by name: "DEATH TO THE JEWS." - Alex Linder and I think it's time for the white man to use a different strategy against these semitic jew mongrels, the days of talking are over, it is time to use physical force against the jewish population. It seems a pretty clear to me that the blocking policy applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

He specifically encouraged people to get a user name and follow the rules, believing that to be the best way to avoid being blocked. I do appreciate the irony of someone declaring that "the days of talking are over" on a friggin' Internet forum. I'd take that only slightly more seriously than "Die, Nazi Pigs, Die" below. - Haukurth 22:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Did User:Amalekite expose himself as Alex Linder on a Wikipedia page or was he "outed" by others? Doesn't outing Wikipedia editors as neo-nazis put them in danger? --Chupacupcake 03:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

He made a post to the Vanguard News Network discussion board as Alex Linder indicating that he used the pseudonym Amalekite on wikpedia. Homey 16:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Chupacupcake's idea was that the person who called our notice to the posts on Stormfront/VNN effectively "outed" Linder on Wikipedia. Since this outing occurred Alex Linder has been the subject of some remarks which might be understood as personal attacks, or even threats against his person. One could then try to draw an analogy between Linder's "outing" on Wikipedia and Linder's posting of Wikipedia user pages on other fora. Then one could try to argue that the "Personal attacks which place users in danger" policy should either be applied to both cases or neither case. At least that's what I thought Chupacupcake was getting at. The reasoning is, of course, somewhat forced and the two cases are not close analogues. - Haukurth 16:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to post here, but I just wanted to say I'm absolutely with Func. Actually, I'm shocked that we're actually having this discussion. SlimVirgin absolutely did the right thing. In fact, it bothers me that this is possibly all we can do — this user sounds like a hateful, bigoted violence-mongerer. The thing is, a lot of WPns use their real names, identities, contact info etc on this site. Bringing this info specifically to the attention of a bunch of psycho neonazi assholes is absolutely not something WP should condone — which is what it does if it does not immediately and completely revoke membership to our site.—Encephalon | ^ζ  23:24:06, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Cont'd.1

The Stormfront post in question did not call for violence against anyone. This is what it says:

The following is an incomplete list of those suspected to be members of, or to be the "useful idiots" of, the so-called "Elders of Wikipedia" (the Zionist cabal which has Wikipedia in its grip). Those at the top of the list are definite members and are the most ruthless and vicious of the bunch; those at the bottom I'm less sure about. Monitor the activities of the first 5 on the list (watch their user contribution pages and their user talk pages) and you'll have a good idea of what the entire gang is up to.

This is not a threat. Nor is it, I believe, an action exposing any Wikipedian to danger. For one thing no information is made public that isn't already public. But even if this policy did apply, and I can accept that reasonable people can hold that opinion, it calls for a block "for a period of time", not an indefinite block. I have written at length to the mailing list on various aspects of this issue, see in particular [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] [9] and [10]. The user did not disrupt Wikipedia and, I fear I must disagree with User:Jayjg above, he did not encourage other people to do so. - Haukurth 05:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

On these facts, the block under the endangerment rule was correct. Although the information was public knowledge, in that it was out there somewhere on the Web, specifically bringing it to the attention of the neo-Nazi crowd significantly increased the chance of harassment or worse. The tougher question arises from the hypothetical example given by JRM. I'd like it to be easier for us to get rid of people like this (Nazi or otherwise) even if they don't go so far as to violate the endangerment rule. JamesMLane 05:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth, I don't mean to insult you, but your commentary strikes me as being rather naive, and I'm fairly certain that your opinion in the matter would be quite different if your name had been posted to a hate group that would rather see you dead. To spell it out: it is a disruption to Wikipedia because it discourages the targeted editors from making contributions to the project, because, you know, we are talking about friggin nazis here. Placing a Jewish name onto such a hate group's mailing list is tantamount to inciting an act of violence. Func( t, c, @, ) 06:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think blocking someone for posting an information widely available in a site outside Wikipedia, is a good idea. I don't consider the list a threat, I consider it childish, from an immature person. What should be done though, is to have fixed rules on the purposes of talk pages here in Wikipedia. If talk pages are used for what they really meant for, such people could not come here and dump their materials and hateful messages. I've said it for some time now, talk pages should not be used to “prove” or establish a debated truth(I should know, I fell in the trap myself in various occasion). If there is rules for this, and that someone can be banned temporarily or permanently for not respecting such rules, it will leave talk pages clean. Talk pages of articles should be restricted to the subject contained in the article. The debates in the talk page should be about how to present the different positions and not “proving” which one is true. The debates is about the spaces left in the article for each position based on the proportion of people in the Academia(when it applies) that support that position against another etc. And also, when posting materials, those materials should be useful for the subject at hand. For instance, in the entry regarding the Holocaust, a material about the Israelo-Palestinian subject is unwelcome and should be followed by a warning. Fadix 17:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm shocked and appalled by these whackos, but I welcome their challenge. They think they're above intelligence, and I submit that they're far below. Let them bring it... As Jimbo says, the "rules" can be changed as needed to deal with these morons. If Jimbo chooses tomorrow to give me admin powers, I'll ban them on sight. Wikipedia will be better off without anyone in the real world hearing a word they have to say. Anyone who says "but wikipedia has credibility problems", I submit to them that it's because Jimbo's been far too lenient in allowing everyone to have a say that has led to the credibility problems. If whacko neonazis hold WP in low regard, I think Jimbo will sleep better, not worse. Time to pull out the blind bully ban stick and send these whack forx back to the hell whence they came. "Die, Nazi Pigs, Die", I say. All in favor say "aye", all opposed say "death to the cabal, and may I have a heart attack, and put myself out of the world's misery". Good lord. Sometime a line has to be drawn between reality and stupidity, and I think the day is drawing damn nigh. Tomer ^TALK 06:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Um... thanks... for those insightful and obviously NPOV-spirited comments. Please note that repeatedly invoking Jimbo's name in a general debate is rather poor form. -St|eve 18:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have kept my mouth shut/fingers still--I'd just gotten back from a bachelor party (mazal tov to my brother!) and wasn't entirely sober[11]. :-\ Tomer ^TALK 19:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

'Late... Party... Drunk... Login... Debate... "Die Nazi Pigs Die."' ~ROFL. Booze plus controversy == bad mix. :-) -St|eve 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Haukurth, I agree with Func. You don't need to actually call for violence against people when you list them as Jews on a mailing list in which people have called for the extermination of Jews. The participants in the forum already understand what they are "supposed" to do to Jews (and other non-whites). Look at the forums, if you can stomach it. It isn't that hard to get 4 out of 2 + 2. Guettarda 07:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that right-wing nutbags say the same thing all the time, and not just against Jews, but against Arabs, Palestinians, Americans, foreigners, The French, Liberals, etc. Holding a revulsion for one kind of revolting bigotry is just one sided, and taking right wing crankpots too seriously is always a problem --both when they do it, and when others do it. -St|eve 20:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Cont'd.2

I don't believe this user was blocked fairly. First, the obvious stuff: being a Nazi is not a sufficient criterion for an indefinite block. We don't block someone because of what they are, but what they do. Please, let's move past the unhelpful "Nazis are incapable of NPOV" and "Nazi pigs die" and "permablock the bastards for ever" stuff.

Initially, the reason given that Amalekite was blocked was that he was trolling and seeking to disrupt Wikipedia; the blocking admin gave this reason: "neo-nazi Troll soliciting other trolls off of Stormfront". However, the admin did not provide any evidence. I've looked, but I have not seen evidence that he incited disruption of Wikipedia before he was blocked, nor do his Wikipedia contributions contain anything that merit an indefinite ban. In his first StormFront post about Wikipedia, he exhorted others to follow NPOV, avoid insults and personal attacks, and otherwise follow Wikipedia rules. From the reason given, it would seem that the initial block was simple anti-Nazism.

More recently, the reasoning behind the block has been focused on a list of the "elders" of a hypothetical Wikipedia "Zionist cabal", posted by Amalekite on StormFront. He insulted them a little ("ruthless", "vicious" and "stupid"), but he did not call them Jews (they could either be Jews or "liberal-gentile useful idiots"), nor did he call for them to be attacked or persecuted in any fashion, or at least, not that I can see. It's quite reasonable to argue that he was just showing people evidence for what he believed to be a cabal that was running Wikipedia, so that they would go and correct what they saw as anti-Nazi bias. I'm sorry, but to say that this is a call for violence is just wishful thinking.

My personal view is that people's intense feelings about Nazis have coloured their judgment here, and that we're perpetuating a block that has no basis. Frustratingly, this gives weight to Amalekite's otherwise incoherent witterings about anti-Nazi cabalism. — Matt Crypto 08:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

...or it could just be that Nazism is such an dangerous, offensive, stupid, destructive, vile, unintelligent position to hold that it is not a cabal who opposes Nazi, but it is in fact opposed by almost every sane, intelligent and non-racist person who contributes to Wikipedia. I have noticed from my perusal of the StormFront website that the members are outraged when they are forced from a discussion because of their views, and then they focus their outrage on a percieved "cabal" of Jews and their supporters. Yet, I am living proof that this is not the case. I am neither a Jew supporter nor a Jew detractor. I have heard of Jews doing some terrible things in Israel, but I have also heard of terrible things that happened to the Jews by others. I don't think that as a religion/race they are perfect, but on the other hand I don't think they are the scum of the earth either. I submit to the wider community that Nazis are forced from discussions because they contribute nothing to most debates, merely muddying the waters and causing a lot of hatred and consternation among others. I believe that Nazis don't get listened to because their views are not, in fact, worth anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So why are you listening? Etikelama 12:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Cont'd.3

Rules, precedents and assuming good faith be dammed! SV's actions were the correct, indeed the only correct, possibility. Even if there was no implicit threat, these were POV pushers who were taking matters in an unacceptable personal direction. Does anyone think a remedial short block or a little reason would have changed that? Get real. My only concern would be that this type of common sense measure should not be deployed only in anti-semitic cases (TINC). We've had self-confessed paedophiles here, pushing dangerous agendas and self-promoting. The response from the community was 'freedom of speech is absolute’ – ‘words can't hurt’. But, as I think, as this case demonstrates, at the extremes, common sense has to place some limits on that. --Doc (?) 08:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about people who, say, think homosexuals should burn in hell? (e.g. religious fundamentalists). Should we ban those preemptively, too? When we start banning people for what they believe, rather than what they do, we've lost the moral high ground. If Amalekite had started expressing hate speech on Wikipedia, or pushing a Nazi POV everywhere, then he should have been banned, no question, everyone agrees with that. If people are willing to follow our rules, then they should be allowed to edit here. — Matt Crypto 09:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at it in context. I must ask why the fundamentalist is saying this - I personally believe 1 Corinthinans 6:9-10 where it says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV). However, if a fundamentalist quoted this out of its context, focussed merely on homosexuality, didn't mention the next version "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." then I would fully support banning them for offensiveness and stupidity. How, precisely, would it have been out of love that they said this unless they fully talk about the passage? If they used the words that gays would "burn in hell" then I would consider banning them also.

BTW, I know that some of you are going to be upset that I agree with 1 Corinthians. To those people I say: I am a Christian and my views do form from the Bible. I would never persecute anyone who is gay, I would never insult them and I would never refuse to be friends with them merely because they are gay. As with any other non-Christian I meet, I feel sad that unless the non-Christian accepts Jesus then they won't make it into the Kingdom of God. I can't think of anything worse. But does this make me stop loving others and being friends with non-Christians? Of course not. That's why I get really angry when I see signs like "God hates fags" - what I believe God hates are the actions of those who stand in the way of his Gospel and who spout out hatred.

Sorry for the sermon, but I felt that I had to make this point. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hum, Ok, I probably overstated to make a case. But there are valid questions here. People who say folk should 'burn in hell' don't really trouble me, as they have little control over that matter. But what about people who just say 'homosexuals/blacks/Jews should burn, period? The 'judge on what they do not what they say' distinction never quite works here - most civilized societies recognise 'incitement'. Although, I'll grant whether the case in question constitutes that is doubtful. My first point stands though, this behaviour indicates POV pushing, personal attacks, and is frankly disruptive. That was never going to change, and they were never going to make a constructive contribution to an encyclopedia. A ban, then, is not so much censorship (I wouldn't ban anyone just for being a neo-nazi - if they showed a willingness to try to write NPOV), as it is protecting the smooth running of the project. --Doc (?) 09:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If Amalekite had said "Jews should burn" on Wikipedia, then he certainly should have been blocked with extreme prejudice. But we don't ban people for POV pushing and personal attacks outside of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 10:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not sure that said posting even remotely "puts users in danger". Actually putting a user in danger would require something rather more (such as "James F. goes for a coffee at 10:15 every day from the Café Nero on Tothill Street; kill him!", or reporting someone under a dictatorial regime to the authorities to get them tortured). Certainly, that's how I would read it. Maybe my parsing of English differs from the rest of you, however. :-)

FWIW, I get death threats semi-occasionally (and general violence threats much more commonly); it's just par for the course of being a sysop (well, certainly, an Arbitrator), and I don't take them that seriously. Whether the nutters want me dead personally, or for being Jewish, an atheist, a monarchist, or whatever, is mildly irrelevent.

James F. (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the post JDF. To take the "Elders of Wikipedia" concept seriously certainly qualifies as being hebetudinous, but for that matter taking Nazis with any kind of seriousness is kind of doing the same thing in reverse. Both require a lacking of even the most primitive sense of humor. And the people in question arent Nazis anyway--whats left of whom are all in Argentine rest homes, most wishing they had never had to hear of Nazism in the first place.-St|eve 18:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read the discussion about this on the mailing list and I find it totally preposterous. You're not supposed to ban someone for what they say on a website unrelated to WP (the only exception I can think of that would be justified would be to abort a planned vandal attack by blocking the user name that was intended to perpetrate it). You're not even supposed to ban someone for what they say on the WP IRC channel. Political views can't be allowed to factor into this (note that, although currently this business about threats is being played up, originally the block was pretty transparently just about getting rid of a Nazi—that was only changed when that justification met substantial opposition). You absolutely cannot ban someone just for being a Nazi. The ArbCom could ban someone for aggressive and persistent Nazi POV pushing, conceivably. But an admin cannot make that decision unilaterally, especially when the user has apparently not been doing anything particularly objectionable on Wikipedia. The logical leaps I have to make to deem this block reasonable are like clearing the Grand Canyon a couple times over. Everyking 09:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

James, did you bother to actually read the section of the blocking policy quoted? I'll just repeat here that it specifically includes "actions outside the Wikipedia site". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear that neither side in this debate is arguing in bad faith, out of sympathy with racists, or from a knee-jerk reaction to Nazis. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to see how the actions for which the block was applied can be excused, or seen as anything other than deeply anti-Wikipedian. Even setting aside the moral evil involved (and there's surely no doubt of that evil; NPoV doesn't demand that we give up out moral sense before editing, it concerns only what we write), drawing the attention of the members of an avowedly violent racist organisation to a set of Wikipedia editors in this way is unacceptable. Even if the intention wasn't to incite violence against them, it was certainly to incite opposition to them — and opposition from people whose combined intelligence, sophistication, and sense of fair play wouldn't boil a small kettle. In other words, the intention was to subject the people on that list to pressure from outside; surely we don't tolerate that from a Wikipedia editor? (Unsigned) (Not unsigned — it's just that other editors inderted comments in between my two paragraphs. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης))

I can certainly get behind this view, though Im sure you can see the other side of this, that it at least appears to bend the rules to single out whole group based on a supposition of threat. Its hard to argue against that claim on anything but idealistic grounds. But weve tolerated disruptive editors before and found the normal channels suitable for handling them, so being pre-judgemental toward any group seems to be at best practical rather than principled. "Anti-Wikipedian" is vague--just say "POV-pusher" instead. -St|eve 19:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

First, supposing you're correct, we don't block people because they've asked certain Wikipedians to be opposed. The blocking provision that SlimVirgin argues above is for actions which put users in personal danger.

Secondly, I don't agree with your analysis of his intention. It's hazardous to second-guess someone's intention, particularly if you've already decided that they're "evil" to start with (I do believe Nazism is evil, by the way). People have proposed that the motivation behind Amalekite posting this list was to issue a call to violence. I think that's reaching, but it's possible. You could also argue that Amalekite was only seeking to expose (as he sees it) a biased cabal running Wikipedia. That's also possible. But this is the problem: we haven't blocked him because of his actions on Wikipedia; we've blocked him because of how we've interpreted some of his comments on another website. I think this is unsafe. — Matt Crypto 09:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Matt Crypto's point: if someone were to put me on a list of people destined to burn in hell, I'd not care; such a list would be an attempt to state an opinion, to describe my future (even if he were to include me in his prayers, begging his god to send me to hell, I'd be no more worried than if he'd sent a letter asking Santa not to bring me any presents). This case is clearly completely different. Amalekite wasn't blocked for what he believes, but for what he did. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Cont'd.4

Mel puts it rightly here. This must be about disruptive and anti-Wikipedian behaviour and not beliefs. No we don't know the motives - but that goes for any common or garden troll or vandal - we have to judge the likely effect of the behaviour. Frankly, differentiating between what is done inside or outside wikipedia is just wikilawyering. Most organisations recognise 'behaviour which brings the organisation into disrepute', or is 'incompatible with participation' - even if done 'off duty'. --Doc (?) 10:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We do normally differentiate between actions separate from Wikipedia and actions that involve Wikipedia. I don't think any sysop would have banned this user if he'd just posted anti-semitic rants on StormFront without mentioning Wikipedia. And I don't think anyone would have had any objection to banning him if he'd have plainly said on StormFront, "let's attack Wikipedia with an army of sockpuppets and bias it towards Nazism. And by the way, here's a list of Wikipedian Jews to do violence on". But the situation is not so straightforward with Amalekite. — Matt Crypto 11:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Stormfront is openly anti-Semitic; Stormfront is violent; posting a list of Jews and "fellow-travellers" to the Stormfront web-site can be nothing other than threatening. The very best that one could say about Amalekite is that he's too stupid or naive to know what he was doing — but no-one has suggested that. it's true that it could have been more straightforward, but the amount of inference needed here is very small (not much more than is needed to infer from someone shouting to a bunch of Klansman: "Hey, that nigger raped my sister!" to the conclusion that he intended harm to the black man at whom he was pointing). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps vigilantism is wrong, but surely you're not suggesting that the black man should be let off the hook and not be punished for raping the other man's sister, are you? Etikelama 14:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that simple examination of the context would indicate that there would be no requirement of guilt on the part of said black man, only physical presence. (Slightly startled this should even have to be pointed out) —Phil | Talk 14:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to add to what looks like flaming, it should also be mentioned that other sites are equivalently hateful towards others. We don't deal with any of "them" en masse, but as individuals. I think thats the basis for the block, but many supporters of the block seem to fall back into particularism about certain assholes, and not others. -St|eve 07:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

To make this go through, you'd have to cite a similar case involving one of those other sites, in which people backing this ban argued differently. Is there such a case?

I'm a little perplexed with regard to another case of a different kind; I recently posted a comment on the admins' noticeboard, in which I mentioned that Madchester has been blocking anons for vandalism for long periods out of keeping with the blocking policy, from a week up to indefinitely. No-one seems to have taken any notice, yet SlimVirgin's indefinite block imposed for much more substantial reasons has attracted this huge debate. Perhaps I should have mentioned white supremacists... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Cont'd.5

This is like banning Plautus satire, except he's far more aggressive, and the insanity is of a different kind. I would like to remind everyone that the free nature of Wikipedia is a means to the end of building an encyclopedia; total freedom is not the purpose of this Wiki. Perfect liberty to edit the Wiki is neither useful nor desirable. No one can possibly advance an explanation for how it would help the project to have that user editing. --causa sui ^talk 11:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a possible way he could help the project: he could edit articles on Neo-Nazism etc for NPOV. — Matt Crypto 11:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Which is exactly what he was trying to do before he was banned. Look at his edits and assume good faith. Not biting the newbie is another thing to keep in mind. - Haukurth 12:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there isn't total freedom. But that works both ways. We have rules, and everyone has to adhere to them, including admins when blocking someone. Everyking 11:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Folks need to consider that in recent years there has been a pattern in the extreme right in the United States of posting names or targeted groups on the Internet followed by physical attacks, arson, and murders. In the case of abortion-providers, a very rare court decision was to block a website that listed the names, addresses, and photographs of doctors, and as they were killed, their photographs were "X"d out. This was found to be outside the protection of the First Amendment. But even if the only outcome would be that "Jews" on Wikipedia were attacked by spamming, or edit wars, it seems to me that the principles of collective morality would demand that we stand up for our product and participants against such attacks.--Cberlet 13:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I recall only one such incident in recent years. Can you be more specific? 64.254.131.93 15:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Folks need to consider that in recent years there has been a pattern in the extreme right in the United States of posting names or targeted groups on the Internet..." Funny, that pattern seems even more prevalent in the extreme left, what with groups like Nizkor and the ADL posting the names and personal details of individuals they don't like to their websites. Several people on such lists, from Robert Faurisson to Ernst Zundel to Renzo de Felice, have repeatedly been the victims of violence and/or have had their homes firebombed by Jewish and left-wing extremists. But I guess this shouldn't matter, because these individuals aren't politically correct, which means that it's OK to brutalize and even murder them, isn't that right, Chip Berlet? Etikelama 12:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You have the freedom to swing your fists, as long as it's not past the tip of my nose. Kim Bruning 13:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And the courts have consistently ruled that assault does not require physical contact, and that in some rare cases the reasonable fear of assault trumps the First Amendment. The only way that libertarianism stops a bullet from a Nazi is if the target is carrying a thick tome by Ayn Rand.--Cberlet 13:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Assault" is a threat. "Battery" is the "physical contact" part. As in "assault and battery". Raising your fist in a threatening manner is assault but not battery. Hitting you from behind is NOT assault but it is battery. 4.250.168.27 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What if you're being attacked by a libertarian Nazi? Etikelama 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But I don't think this case includes a reasonable fear of assault. And if people really are concerned that the Stormfront postings constitute an incitement to attack then banning User:Amalekite does, as far as I can see, nothing to remedy that situation. If anything it would be more likely to aggravate it. Writing to the webmaster of the site, asking him or her to remove the post in question might be a more constructive step. I personally did so on August 23rd but have not received a reply. My letter can be found at User:Haukurth/Letter to Stormfront forum moderator. - Haukurth 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an open forum, the first amendment does not apply at all in this case. Kim Bruning 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an open..." what is it then? A closed forum with Nazi-like practices for helping it reject Nazi ideology? Be fair, and not simplistic. -St|eve 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia, it is not a forum for random speech. You are permitted to edit here. Typically if you're contributing to the encyclopedia you will be allowed to continue editing, but your privileges may be withheld at any time and for any reason (or even for no reason at all). Kim Bruning 22:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can block you and anybody else if I feel like it, without needing any reason at all? Let me remind you that we have rules and processes... Everyking 03:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think you need to have a good reason. But at the end of the day, if someone is seriously damaging the encyclopedia, you have to ban them. If the ban is contested, you'll have to explain yourself. Kim Bruning 23:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, before you bluntly stated one could be blocked for any reason or for no reason, so you had me worried. I agree that if someone is doing more harm than good, consistently, then they need to go. However, this is within the context of two other beliefs: 1) Permanent or long-term blocks should be done through a process, which currently exists as the ArbCom; 2) if an admin wishes to make such a block without going through the formal process, it is at least necessary to state one's opinion in advance, that the user needs to go, and try to reach a general community approval of the block. If you can rationally expect anything to be controversial, you need to discuss it before you act. So my thinking is: ideally this should have been taken to the ArbCom, if those advocating a block wanted to pursue it, but barring that, there would at least need to be a general community consensus reached prior to taking this move. It's bad to do something you know will be controversial without putting it to the community for discussion and agreement first. That's inappropriate admin conduct. If it is directly contrary to existing policy, as in this case, then especially so. Everyking 06:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have great respect for your opinion at all times. Could you motivate in depth? (perhaps on one of our user talk pages?). Kim Bruning 09:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Because of the discussion on the mailing list, I've read every edit of Amalekite on Wikipedia, and every edit as "Frank Sinatra" on Stormfront. I've even read more of VNN than I care to stomach. I've seen the watchlist of Wikipedia members who Amalekite thinks are editing with a POV. I've found evidence of Amalekite thinking Jews control the media, and that Amalekite wants to remove the "Jewish POV" that he sees. I've found evidence of hatred, bigotry, and even a desire to kill Jews in general. I've found a lot of very distateful and disgusting statements. I've found no evidence of real threats, or of placing users in danger. We cannot protect Wikipedia users from every minor fear they ever feel. Life sucks that way sometimes.

Amalekite was clearly blocked for what he believes and his POV, not for what he has done. Fighting bigotry, prejudice and hatred with more bigotry, prejudice and hatred is a poor solution that only leads to moral bankruptcy. This is a moral decision; that our principles apply to everyone equally, even those we dislike the most. Matt Crypto was correct to unblock the account, and he and Haukurth have stated correct views of this.

Had we given this user enough rope, he probably would have hung himself anyway. Please read the entire thread on the mailing list for full understanding of my view. Unfocused 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been following this debacle from early on and have read the mailing list thread, as well as what's been posted at stormfront (and really want to take a shower now), and I still feel that Amalekite's actions were at the root of his being banned; it's his actions at Stormfront as "Frank Sinatra" that are the issue [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536]. He was rightly banned IMHO. FeloniousMonk 16:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think the ban was very justified. Nontheless, if there are any issues with the ban, it should be up to the ArbCom to decide, not a 5 pages long talk session. This should focus on the actual policy itself, not the guy that got banned. Elfguy 17:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is pretty right on. IAC, long-term bans need Arbcom review. -St|eve 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The rules do not exist simply to have rules. They exist because they allow the community to function and do the job for which it exists. If you look at the people who were on the list, you will see thousands of hours of contribution to Wikipedia. In essence, thousands of hours of volunteer work. Having your name put up on Stormfront makes you a target. It doesn't matter whether Linder asks for, or even desires violence against these people. It's a neo-Nazi board where there are people who believe that Jews are a virus that should be destroyed. Some are crazier than others, I suspect. We shouldn't be writing letters as individuals - the Wikimedia foundation should ask the moderator to remove the posts. This is not a trivial matter. I find it repulsive that people should discuss legalisms surrounding Amalekite/Linder's ban. Any non-zero risk to the people on the list that arises from this is a totally unacceptable level of risk. Guettarda 17:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well put. FeloniousMonk 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Some are crazier than others I suspect" could be applied to any right-wing extremist group. Assholes are everywhere, and they all like to shit on everything. Do we ban all assholes? -St|eve 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting the identities of "enemies" (Jewish or otherwise) on a website many of whose members and owners express desires to murder Jews and their "collaborators" is not an innocent act or an expression of one's ideas. This guy knew exactly what he was doing. Whether his actions are legal or not are entirely irrelevant (and based on my knowledge of the law, I can say that were harm to come to a Wikipedian as a result of these stormfront postings, the poster would probably bear civil and possibly criminal liability.) The fact that this debate is even taking place is distatsteful in the extreme. On this issue there should be no debate between reasonable people. --Briangotts (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"There should be no debate between reasonable people" seems more like a fundamental tenet of Nazi-like ideology than any statesmanlike claim.-St|eve 20:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how to even begin responding to that ridiculous comment. Briangotts (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous. Etikelama 12:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The only solution to Guettarda's proposed level of risk is to require everyone to contribute anonymously at all times. It is simply an extreme case of wishful thinking. Amalekite's list was a list of Wikipedia user names, nothing more. If you read the list and what Amalekite specifically proposed that people do with it, you will see that it was specifically to edit Wikipedia in the name of eliminating the POV bias that Amalekite perceives. Not once did he propose anything other than following behind those editors to review their postings for bias. Not once did he provide any detail of who the people on the list really are, or did he even suggest that it was even possible to find out. If people want to feel safer regarding the information about themselves they've posted online, they should be posting less personal information online. It is not a reasonable to preemptively ban someone based on crimes that they've not only not committed, but have given no reasonable indication that they would ever commit. Hate itself, although distasteful and wrong, is not a crime. But it is equally distasteful no matter which side of the fence you're on. This is a moral and ethical test that I fear most here are failing. Unfocused 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have distaste for neo-Nazis. I make no secret of that. I don't see myself having constructive conversations with people who think I should not exist, but I don't assume that they are subhuman either. Like any good bleeding heart liberal, I figure there must be some good in them, something worth saving. I don't see much value in hate. I tried hating once upon a time. I hated people who tried to destroy my country. But I realised that it cost me too much to hate.

I disagree with Unfocused. This is not a pre-emptive ban. It is, like someone said higher up the page, analogous to the situation of abortion doctors. You don't need to say "kill Dr. So-and-So". You just need to post his name to the appropriate forum. Even if I had posted zero personal information about myself here, it would be apparent that I am a Trinidadian, and I am a biologist. My IP address resolves back to my employer. My edit history would make me easy to find. You cannot take Amalekite/Linder's comments without context. It isn't like he posted them to a Society of Friends forum. He posted them to a "white nationalist" forum. These aren't people who get accused on racism and deny it - these are people who embrace the idea. It isn't like neo-Nazis are just boy scouts who like to get together and swap stories. There are people among them who murder judge's families. Wikipedia forbids putting editors in danger. A/L's actions put editors in danger. Thus, they are bannable. I can't fathom why you would defend these actions. Page 1, "death to the Jews". Page 2 "here are some Jews you should keep an eye on". Whether Linder intends it or not, it's easy enough for people to read 2 + 2 as 4. But intent isn't the issue here, since we have no way to speak to intent. But the actions still have the possibility of putting users in danger. In addition to any other actions, someone speaking on behalf of the Foundation should ask Stormfront to remove the postings. Guettarda 20:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Banning should be for the best of Wikipedia. I don't see how this banning will stop the idiot from talking about Wikipedians in forums. The guy now will get more supports and play the poor victim that was silenced and who was banned because others were “unable” to counter his so-called “arguments.” Wikipedia should not be part of this stupid game. On the other hand, after reviewing the link where the guy posted the information, I find, that his other posts were much worst, and would much more justify a banning than posting a list that isn't much difficult to get. His other posts indicate that the guy is perturbed, and makes us question, if we really need such a member here. But still, this beg to question, how far ones participation in other Internet medium could have repercussions here in Wikipedia. For example, I did myself receive death threats(some of them, from Jew hater disturbed “adult” kids) from some in the past, from forums, and other times I was defamed, from moderators of a forum, they've posted pornography to then accuse me to ban me and kill my credibility. Suppose now that some of those peoples come here in Wikipedia, would they be banned? I mean, Fadi, Fadix etc. are my long used alias back then, the same as the one I use here in Wikipedia. Also, there is a member here, with whom I had “debated” who is the author of a racist site, which slander authors, people and who consider Armenians as cockroaches..., how is the fact that a racist, who is known to own a racist site, will influence the way he will be handled here. I think all this isn't clear, and should be sorted out. Fadix 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Deadlock

I don't see a consensus forming here. The provision in question stipulates that the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo should be contacted. Presumably the idea is that it's their job to sort things like this out. I would be fine with having them do that. I've personally said just about everything I have to say about this and I'd rather spend time on other editing than repeat myself. - Haukurth 20:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, it would be nice for Jimbo to come down from his spaceship and make it all better, but that would mean that we've failed in our job to find consensus. Sarah's (new) explanation goes a long way toward justifying the block in my view, but that doesnt change the fact that it needs Arbcom review, which I dont think anyone reasonable should be opposed to. In fact it should be in the block policy! IAC, Sarah shouldnt be made to feel as if she did something wrong, and oversight by both community and Arbcom vote are a normal part of any "provision [that] is rarely used." Those with a bias seem to claim "its a no-brainer -- these are Nazis," but those with more sense can all agree that "this is a no-brainer --nothing special, follow procedure, submit controversial blocks to Arbcom." Many of those in "support" seem to only care more about the results, while those opposed seem to care more about the integrity of the process. -St|eve 21:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm certain that Sarah acted in good faith with the aim of benefiting the encyclopedia and the community. I'm also sure she acted in accordance with her understanding of policy. I also agree that the discussion is clearer now that it revolves around the "personal attacks which put users in danger" policy. I still don't think the block is warranted according to that provision but I can accept that reasonable people may disagree. In any case I think the relevant provision should be followed to the letter, insofar as is still possible. - Haukurth 21:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

With something like 2:1 in favor of the blocking on this page, it strikes me that overall the community largely supports SV's actions. FeloniousMonk 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats not in question, though going by talk pages isnt even a poll, less a vote. And community vote isnt the issue. The issue is proper process for a long-term block. Homey and Sarah were right to act, but then so was Matt. Who reviews? Jimbo? Arbcom needs to review the blocking policy as well as the blocks themselves. -St|eve 21:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There has been no vote and this is (fortunately) not VfD. :) I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, though, that there could be something like a two-thirds majority in favor of the block. I have not, however, tried to categorize and count the opinions of the various people that have expressed themselves on the subject and I don't feel that would be fruitful at this stage. - Haukurth 21:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Why invoke consensus above if it's not a deciding factor? What percentage fulfills the definition of consensus for you, two-thirds majority? FeloniousMonk 21:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a random person reading the above discussion would come away with the impression that we have reached a consensus. A definition of consensus which would give such a result is, in my opinion, not useful. In any case, as has been pointed out, it's somewhat early to count the votes before calling the elections. - Haukurth 22:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikis are great places to run with consensus, because everything can be undone. This makes the wiki-test for consensus so simple: Just BE BOLD and do it. If someone (anyone!) undoes your action, you didn't have consensus. If no-one undoes it, apparently you had consensus.

So in this case, apparently it's consensus that this person stays blocked. At least, no one is taking the step to unblock!

-- Kim Bruning 22:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"If someone (anyone) undoes your action, you didn't have consensus" may be either funny or dumb but not both. Its the Bruning uncertainty principle, apparently. -St|eve 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually quite serious, and have used this rule of thumb to fix a stranded wiki or two. (The next step after being reverted is to contact the person opposed to your action, who might then unrevert, and then the next person comes by, etc, until you're done. It works. Deal with it.) Kim Bruning 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm just trying to understand by what criteria an instance like this requires escalation to Jimbo, the Arbcom, etc., and what escalation paths are to be followed. It doesn't seem to be too well defined. FeloniousMonk 22:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make clear again that Amalekite was not blocked for his beliefs. There are other (apparent) neo-Nazis editing Wikipedia, and I know who they are. At least one of them has also posted on Stormfront about Wikipedia, and has asked other members of Stormfront to start editing here, and he hasn't been blocked. It's therefore demonstrably false that Amalekite was blocked either for his beliefs, or for asking others who share his beliefs to start editing.

The main reason for the block was his posting the list of names, and a secondary reason was that he started talking about how to use open proxies to edit. (And I also felt reblocking was the right thing to do because he was unblocked without discussion.) The posting of the names wasn't a "new" reason, as someone wrote above: I included that as a reason in the block log. I blocked under the section of the policy that we're discussing, and Jimbo and the arbcom have been informed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. You were right to act and now its in the hands of the Arbcom (or according to Kim Bruning, "someone (anyone)") to review your reasons and formalize your decision. They have to determine a) if that list in that context constituted a threat to persons, and b) if disseminating information regarding sockpuppets and circumvention of protections was actually disruptive to Wikipedia (is mere intent enough?) Formal confirmation could be done by the Arbcom on a casepage, rather than on private mail. -St|eve 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom formalise? Errr, ok, new task for the arbcom I hear, they'll be so pleased. In the mean time, other people have apparently reviewed Slimvirgins' decision and decided not to undo it, so the status quo remains until the arbcom finds time for its newly appointed task. Kim Bruning 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. ;-) Just to clarify, the blocking policy says that Jimbo and the arbcom must be informed about blocks under the personal-danger provision, but it doesn't say anything about a formal review. I'm assuming they'll be in touch if they feel the block was inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

My psychic between-the-lines translation of the above is : "They all backed me up privately" :-\ Doesnt it seem valid to have a public stamp-validation formality anytime when mere sysop blocks become community "bans?" There are a lot of admins these days, and any "bans" we impose should have some formal review which doesnt have to impugn the sysop for the block, but allows for formal correction and validation of any "ban." There are still those two reasons for your block, (points a and b above) but because those are open to some subjective interpretation, a permanent ban is in the realm of the Arbcom and should formally deal with those reasons you gave. Shouldnt it? Or is tacit agreement good enough? -St|eve 07:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you'd like to have some kind of stonger closure? Hmmmm... Kim Bruning 08:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this whole this is part of the threaded discussion, so I'll just put my 2c here. I just want to say I'm absolutely with Func et al. I'm shocked that we're actually having this discussion. SlimVirgin absolutely did the right thing. In fact, it bothers me that this is possibly all we can do — this user sounds like a hateful, bigoted violence-mongerer. The thing is, a lot of WPns use their real names, identities, contact info etc on this site. Bringing this info specifically to the attention of a bunch of psycho neonazi assholes is absolutely not something WP should condone — which is what it does if it does not immediately, completely and permanently revoke membership to our site.—Encephalon | ^ζ  23:28:45, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

It's Amalekite that is now doing in his pents of laughter. He achieved what any hate mongering would have dreamed of. He got all the attention around him, more so than he could have hopped. Ignoring idiots is the worst thing for them, those sort of people are attention sicking, they starve of attention, and he has obtained what he wanted; bunch of people rounded around this talk page talking about him. When the guy posted the list, the harm was done, and the right thing was to ask gently to the moderators there to delete the thing; but banning him and engaging in a discussion about him has only profited him, nothing positive was obtained from this whole process. Fadix 00:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[I'm completely sober now...still looking into getting that breathalizer keyboard lock...] In case anyone's looking for a brief overview of the user in question, you can look at what I've got at User:TShilo12/RFC/Amalekite... Tomer ^TALK 23:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wholly s%$t, that's not only claims(him being Alex Linder ), I take back my questioning of the banning. Given this fact, there can be no question on the banning, it was the good decision. Fadix 00:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

According to his article, Alex_Linder, we were at the Claremont Colleges at the same time... creepy. FeloniousMonk 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing, SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin wrote,

The main reason for the block was his posting the list of names, and a secondary reason was that he started talking about how to use open proxies to edit. (And I also felt reblocking was the right thing to do because he was unblocked without discussion.) The posting of the names wasn't a "new" reason, as someone wrote above: I included that as a reason in the block log. I blocked under the section of the policy that we're discussing, and Jimbo and the arbcom have been informed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Do not let anyone here tell you anything to the contrary. I find this whole incident surreal. Indeed.

Its comforting to know there are good Admins out there on Wikipedia, like you SlimVirgin. You have my 100% support. Well done, indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I think admins are better when they try to work out a consensus before engaging in controversy and then dragging us all into a mess. And when they follow the actual rules instead of what they think the rules ought to be. Everyking 05:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and I commend you for being so self-critical, Everyking. That will show your critics who too often accuse you in being hopelessly lazy in reviewing any and all evidence; in being notorious for drawing conclusions on account of petty personal vendettas. El_C 07:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from personal attacks worded in a roundabout way, El C. This discussion is exciting strong enough feelings as it is. - Haukurth 11:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Pot.Kettle.Black. El_C 11:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If I have made any comment which you perceive as an attack then please point it out to me and I will apologize. - Haukurth 12:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Key word was roundabout, and I doubt you're prepared to apologize for the majority of your comments here, nor am I particularly interested in disecting each of these to establish what I have already address bellow at some length. El_C 12:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So you feel that my contributions to this discussion, taken as a whole, constitute some sort of gigantic roundabout personal attack? :) - Haukurth 13:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Some sort of. :( El_C 13:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The above notwithstanding, I'll take my praise where I can get it. Thank you for your kind words, El C. Everyking 06:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, James. El_C 09:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Discreditable agenda

Sometimes you just have to call a Spade an open task. And that most definitely goes for SteveV, Haukurth, Un-Focused, and Lisa S (whomever s/he is on Wikipedia). I just want to express, in the clearest possible terms, how revolted I have been with your unmistaken agenda, one which seems about as far from goodfaith as is imaginable, in order to advance your un-principled point. El_C 10:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have caused you revulsion. Let me, in turn, assure you that I don't feel revolted by you. I'm sort of curious, though. What bad faith agenda do you conceive of us having and what is the un-principled point we are trying to make? I personally think we're all acting in good faith, with the interests of the encyclopedia and its community in mind. And, by the way, your cat is way cute! - Haukurth 11:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

To start with, ignoring the details of this specific case in order to advance an unrelated, broader point, and doing so with the utmost insesitivity under the guise of civility, despite all explanations offered. With much rule and wordlawyering expended toward that end. El_C 11:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. But that's not quite what I was asking about. I'm wondering what the "unreleated, broader point" that we are, in your opinion, trying to make is. What's our point? What's our agenda? What's our goal? What's our motivation? What can I say to assure you that we are acting for what we perceive as the good of Wikipedia? - Haukurth 12:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The unrelated broader point was whether Nazis should be premptively banned, which had the effect of Un-Focusing the discussion as pertaining to the evidence presented in this specific case; your respective points may vary; you can say that you would make a concerted effort, a better effort, to take into account and address the views of the many editors who I listed bellow. I'm not really interested in what I percieve amounts to passive-agressive gestures, nor in increasing circularity. El_C 13:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. Various people have expressed their opinion on whether nazis should be pre-emptively banned. Some are in favor, some are not. Sarah, who is the blocking admin, has stated that she is not in favor. I agree and I don't regard it as the reason for User:Amalekite's ban. But it's an interesting discussion in its own right and I'm glad we've had it. As for the reasons Sarah has given for the block I have addressed each of them in detail on the mailing list. I remain of the opinion that the ban should be lifted but I accept that reasonable people can have another opinion. The people you list below have expressed a variety of opinions on this subject and I have read all their contributions here and on the mailing list with interest. Many of them have made good points I had not considered before. I will make every effort to take their views, as well as those of other people participating in the discussion, into account. - Haukurth 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it pecuiliar you feel you can exhibit such a committment while, at the same time, begin that very comment with the very same un-focusing, offtopic preamble I alluded to above. An interesting discussion when? As extended toward what? Interwoven with this specific case in order to make a generalized point? Serving in the interests of clarity as per methodically reviewing and evaluating the pertinent evidence in this specific case? These are the questions that come to my mind, having read closely (as well as posted in) that entire thread on WikiEn-l, and now, here. El_C 14:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to clarify that I consider the discussion on pre-emptively banning nazis and the discussion on whether User:Amalekite's ban is justified to be two separate worthwhile topics. A number of people, however, have expressed the opinion that the fact that User:Amalekite is a nazi is relevant to whether he should have been blocked. That is how the two discussion are interrelated. There is no malicious reason. No-one is trying to derail the discussion. No-one is trying to unfocus the discussion. No-one is trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. No-one has a malicious agenda. I'm sorry that my opinions revolt you but please assume good faith. - Haukurth 16:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I once again urge you to exercize greater sensitivity to other editors' views and feelings, and to avoid circularities, plays on semantics, innuendo, less than goodfaith insinuations, and absolutist declarations. El_C 17:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That's always excellent advice. Thank you. - Haukurth 17:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope it proves appreciable. El_C 18:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I always appreciate good advice. It did occur to me that you were accusing me, in a roundabout way, of not being sensitive to other editors' views and feelings, using circularities, plays on semantics, innuendo, less than goodfaith insinuations and absolutist declarations but assuming good faith I take it you're simply offering some general advice, good to keep in mind in an extended discussion like this. - Haukurth 00:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did not intend for that statement to be read in a roundabout way. I think your assumption of what constitutes expressions goodfaith or lack thereof is misdirected in this (and other) intance(s); distortions which are a product of an initial false premise. El_C 01:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I can no longer even completely understand your rhetoric, much less address whatever points you're trying to make. Please, just let it go. I'm acting in good faith here and if you don't believe that please keep that opinion to yourself. - Haukurth 02:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. You are, of course, more than free to undertake any steps you feel are necessary to ensure I adhere to that request, User:Haukurth. Or, you can addopt a few of your own suggestions. El_C 02:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear El_C,

You've told me I'm acting in bad faith, or, in your own words "about as far from goodfaith as is imaginable". This is a baseless personal attack and you should withdraw it.

You've told me you feel "revolted" by my "unmistaken agenda" (whatever that means). I'm sorry you feel that way but such opinions are usually best kept to oneself on Wikipedia.

You've told me I'm trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. That is not so. I have done nothing at all to disrupt Wikipedia. All I've done is participate in a debate about a particular administrative action.

You've told me that I have an unprincipled agenda. That is not so. Throughout this debate I have acted entirely out of my own principles. I don't like Mr. Alex Linder. I think his political agenda is unethical. The only reason I've defended him is because I feel it is the principled thing to do.

You've told me I've been trying to unfocus and derail the discussion by making it be about whether Nazis should be banned in general rather than the particular reasons for this ban. This is not so. In fact I have specifically called on people to clearly distinguish these two subjects and not attribute anything to Sarah which she didn't say. See this letter: [12] (where I, like an idiot, referred to Sarah as "Rachel").

You've told me that all my contributions to the discussion, taken as a whole, constitute a gigantic personal attack. That is simply absurd.

You've specifically grouped almost every participant in this discussion into those you'd like to thank and those who revolt you, making this difficult debate even more poisonous and divisive.

I've tried to reason with you. I've made every good faith effort to convince you of my good intentions. Apparently you remain unconvinced and I no longer even completely understand what you're trying to say.

Even more absurd than your accusations against me are your rhetorical snides at Matt ("insensitive mindset", "a double standard", "impertinent generalizations" etc.) - who has remained admirably civil, tolerant and fair throughout this sensitive discussion.

You're obviously a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I'm sure you're acting from noble motives here. No doubt you think of yourself as fighting evil in some way. But enough is enough.

I'm moving abroad today and won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia for the next week or so. Feel free to have the last word.

Regards,

Haukur

El C's advice is excellent, but he should follow it himself, having contributed nothing to this page other than unwarranted ad hominem remarks about participants on one side. — Matt Crypto 00:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is a bold statement that reveals an insensitive mindset and a double-standard, and works toward reaffirming my position here. Anyway, it is unfortunate you User:Matt Crypto feels that way, it may not however be an opinion that is shared outside the circle of those select few in favour of unblocking the disruptive user. El_C 01:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm willing to listen to comments on how I can conduct myself better on Wikipedia, but when you question my motives and whether I'm acting in good faith, I have no interest in what you have to say, because I understand my motives better than you do. You accuse me and other opponents of Amalekite's block of being unprincipled, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and acting in bad faith. Frankly, that's complete bullshit. You ask us to exercise "greater sensitivity" having already told us that our agenda (whatever that is) revolts you. Er, what? — Matt Crypto 01:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"[C]omplete bullshit" is debatable. At any rate, what what? If you're not interested in what I have to say, then that's signalls an immediate end to the discussion, no? It's upsetting and unpleasent to feel targetted, as part of a(ny) hate list, is one observation I am consistently taking pains to illustrate here. Hopefuly, not for naught. El_C 01:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Read carefully what I said: I'm willing to listen to how I can conduct myself better on Wikipedia, but I'm not interested in your speculations on my motivations. I'm fully aware of what my motivations are, in the same way that you are not fully aware, therefore your comments on that topic are irrelevant to me (although they might be relevant to others). I would prefer to carry on this discussion on your User talk page, where I will be posting shortly. — Matt Crypto 01:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I direct the same advise to you, esp. to the latter half of my comment. Thanks. El_C 02:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

El C -- I presume you would add me to your list, because I've also opposed the blocking of Amalekite. My motivation for doing so is not to make a clever point, or stir, or whatever. Honestly, I oppose this block on the same principles that I oppose Nazism itself; that is, I think the ban was unfair, and perhaps coloured by anti-Nazi prejudice, at least originally. Believe me, I certainly don't enjoy arguing for an individual with such obnoxious views, but I believe that we've made a mistake and done the Wrong Thing(tm). You might disagree, as have many others, but I don't think it's fair to attack those who are arguing on behalf of Amalekite. — Matt Crypto 11:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. Next time, please aim towards seeking clarifications rather than entering into blocking war. But I suppose you don't view that, nor the Hit List as an attack and rather you opt to entrench yourself in your position. Okay, well, that too is your prerogative. El_C 11:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I do regret entering into a blocking war with SlimVirgin (which was brief and quickly apologised for). I don't understand your hostility here, and I think it's not warranted. Please, let's not make this debate any more poisonous than it has to be. I don't view the list as a "Hit List", that's why I don't support the block. — Matt Crypto 11:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am far from satisfied with that response, since it (as well as hitherto elaborations on that position) lacks substantive and concrete qualifications, and instead is expressed mostly through rhetoric, impertinent generalizations and juxtapositions, thereby is seen as acting insensitively to those editors targetted by the list. I have no intention to retract, but I'm willing to withdraw, if how I nuance my position here is being read as inappropriate. El_C 12:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps eveyone needs to calm down here. I'm not sure that accusations of 'bad faith' are warrented. Having said that, the angst that puts principles over outcome seems a little introspective. I'm always a little suspicious of such deontology in ethics. Although it isn't the grounds for this block, I'm afraid exhibiting 'anti-Nazi prejudice' isn't really top of my 'Bad Things' list. --Doc (?) 11:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's part of the problem. Nazis should be opposed vigorously, but in doing so we should avoid succumbing to what makes Nazism evil in the first place: prejudice and hate. It's argued that Amalekite was blocked because he posted a "Hit List". I'd argue that it's quite a stretch to interpret that list as any sort of call to violence, but that people interpret it that way because of their prejudice. — Matt Crypto 12:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a simplistic and rigid interpertation which views causality through an unscientific, linear prism. But even without the possibility of physical violence against those on the list, it is demorilizing and despriting for them to be treated this way. Not to mention his call to violate policy through proxy, and the other misconduct. In this, one of the sadder events in Wikipedia history, I would like to thank: SlimVirgin, Jimmy Wales, Jayjg, Snowspinner, Encephalon, Guettarda, JRM, Kim Bruning, Willmcw, JamesMLane, Func, Tomer, Mel Etitis, Doc glasgow, Cberlet, Briangotts, Fadix, Gamaliel, Jake, Gkhan, and anyone else I missed. It was (is?) quite the spectacle. El_C 12:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add thanks for the support to HOTR (who initiated the block), Jfdwolff, Ta bu shi da yu, Ryan Delaney, Elfguy, FeloniousMonk, ArmchairVexillologistDon, and Bishonen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Posting a list of supposed Jews on a neo-Nazi site? Perhaps it isn't an explicit 'call to violence', but it is threatening, intimidating and quite unacceptable behaviour (and yes, that is a pre-judgement about the nature of neo-Nazism, if it had been the 'fluffy bunny forum' we'd respond differently). You have concerns about the editing 'rights' of the neo-Nazi, but what about the rights of those on the list to edit here without such intimidation or harassment? --Doc (?) 12:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not just about Amalekite, guys!!!

• I am really concerned that we are getting too personally involved with the blockee Amalekite here...
• The user was not banned for being a neo-nazi. Nor was the block for being a "bad person". Sarah said the block was for "personal attacks which place users in danger" (even though this didn't happen on Wikipedia). So I am not interested in any proof that Amalekite is a neo-nazi or a "bad person". This has nothing to do with the block.
• If I write something stupid, opinionated, or non-mainstream on another site I don't want it to affect my "user ban case" on Wikipedia!). Despite the unsavouriness of what was written on the StormFront bulletin board, I think it is healthy for us to have people criticising us off site and if my user name was on this list I would simply feel proud that I was such a prominent contributor to Wikipedia. Perhaps we can try to ignore silly comments like this and develop some resilience.
• I think I made it clear I don't care a scrap for a user who would post such hateful stuff, but I'm very afraid of setting a precedent here. This is not about one particular user, it's about how we deal with all cases like this. I don't care that User:Amalekite is apparently a neo-nazi. This is just a label and is unhelpful. A user's actions, ie. edits, are the important thing here.
• Also, assuming the block holds, does anyone know what the process would be to get unblocked or is it permanent? If this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave Wikipedia alone." would the block be lifted?

--Lisa 11:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• You should be; and having read your mailing list posts, I think it's a realization which is long overdue.
• Yes, she did, and she said more. This was ignored by yourself and others in order to make an unrelated point.
• Try to avoid Hit Lists, suggestions on how to violate policy, etc., within these offsite "stupidities."
• Perhaps the distinction between clarity and repetition is not so clear, and I challenge that you have failed on that front.
• Appeal to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo as per (placing users in danger) policy, in that highly unlikely event.

--El_C 11:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

About Holmes's nocturnal hound

I haven't added to this conversation because I've said my piece elsewhere, & I'm not sure if repeating it here would be a useful contribution. But reading all of these comments I have noticed something -- an unexpected silence from one specific group. Has anyone heard from Amalekite about this ban? Has anyone significantly involved in this been the target of attacks because of this? SlimVirgin? Jayjg? Anyone mentioned in the infamous "Elders of Wikipedia" list at Stormfront?

If there has been no response, then that would make a large part of this conversation moot, since that would suggest Amalekite isn't as concerned withWikipedia as much as we are about him. If he has approached someone about the ban in a courteous manner, then it might indicate that banning him was an overreaction. If anyone has experienced suspicious activity (e.g., being subscribed to gay porn mailling lists, an old Usenet tactic), then that would be justification for SlimVirgin's block.

Any information? I, for one, will believe all responses unless given cause not to. -- llywrch 20:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You would object to gay porn, but not to porn in general? Etikelama 12:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am the original blocking editor, though SlimVirgin has taken almost all the heat for it when she reapplied the block and has done most of the heavy lifting arguing the case on wikien-l and here. I am not listed on Amalekite's list which should be viewed in a similar light to Richard Nixon's famous Enemies List, it's simultaneoulsy an unintended honour to be on it and a chilling prospect. Homey 15:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I am the second "elder of Wikipedia", and have certainly not heard anything. The last time my userpage was vandalised was months ago, and I have not seen any pattern of systematic scrutiny of my edits. Amalekite has not exactly managed to excite his hinterland with his call to arms. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I do believe blocking policy should be amended to keep Linder-like creatures out of Wikipedia. I don't think we have anything to fear from his band or his views (which are easily refuted, as per TBSDY above), but do we really want longwinded discussions with Nazis? Calvinball it is. JFW | T@lk 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

He specifically a advised them not to violate our policies, so why would you expect vandalism or gay porn? I had a look at the vandalism wikipedians have done to the nazipedia site however, and it made me sick. Tasks you can do 21:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, Just because he advised his peers not to act in a harmful way does not mean they would do so, especially as they might think that they have nothing to lose. My example about gay porn is based from personal experience, & was only meant as an example of one possible form of retribution; please note I also asked if anyone had received a more polite contact.

And while I deplore web site vandalism, & believe that it was wrong to do this to the "nazipedia" site, I find it hard to feel much outrage over the fact. After all, they reused our material without following the guidelines of the GFDL, failed to remove questionable material like user pages & talk pages, & appeared to overlook the fact that all Wikis attract a certain amount of vandalism. Maybe they'll learn from this experience & their next attempt will be more successful.

However, so far no one has reported any response from Amalekite or his fellows. While the hound has still not barked, unlike Holmes I'm not sure what to make of it -- except that Amalekite possibly has no interest in being part of our community. -- llywrch 19:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

llyrwch, in point of fact, Amalekite has been back since the block, as anon IPs, but signing as Amalekite. Please check the contribs of several of the anon IPs at User:TShilo12/RFC/Amalekite. Tomer ^TALK 20:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts for next time

Personally, I have very little energy left for defending Amalekite, an individual for whom I have zero sympathy, but whom I think was blocked unfairly. After reading the arguments, I'm afraid I still don't think that posting a list of supposed "Zionist cabal" members is really putting people in personal danger, even if it was posted on StormFront. There appears to be no evidence so far that the users listed were even harassed over the Internet, let alone in real life.

But in practical terms this matters little, I suppose. It's likely (although not certain) that Amalekite would have found himself blocked in the course of things anyway. I would argue that this would have been a better outcome — to let this user "hang himself" by his own actions on Wikipedia. If he was, as people argued, only out to disrupt and troll Wikipedia, this would have rapidly become evident through his edits, and I'm sure nobody would have objected to an immediate ban at that point. And we could have avoided this rather protracted and occasionally poisonous debate. So that's my first thought for next time we have an extremist user arrive: let things run their course, and everyone will be happier about the legitimacy of the (probable) ban.

My second thought is that, in cases like this, it would have been enormously helpful if the block had been documented better, for reasons of transparency and accountability. When this user was first blocked on the 19th of August by HOTR, the reason given was "neo-nazi Troll soliciting other trolls off of Stormfront". It was only a week later the "personal attacks putting users in danger" clause emerged explicitly as the solid justification for the block; this reason should have been given straight away. Moreover, it would have helped to provide links to, or better still, quotes from Amalekite's statements on StormFront. To an admin reviewing the block, it's not immediately obvious even that, say, Amalekite and Alex Linder and Frank Sinatra are the same person. It's easy to review contributions to Wikipedia, but off-site is a different matter; I believe some of the StormFront postings were deleted or modified during the course of this debate, so quotes are a good idea.

Some people have questioned the right to even debate this block, and have attacked those who have opposed it. This is unhealthy, and I ask that people avoid doing that.

I apologise once more for unblocking this user without consulting with the blocking admin. Moreover, I realise that I've insinuated a couple of times that this "list of cabalists" reason was only a flimsy pretext for blocking this user, and that the real reason was bare prejudice against Nazis. That was hasty: I have no evidence that this is true, and I'm happy to assume good faith, so I'm sorry about that. — Matt Crypto 00:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I second your comments and proposals. In particular I hope everyone can get on board with better documentation of blocks. Hopefully we'll all be a bit more careful next time. I've certainly learned a lot about the way Wikipedia works. I wasn't even aware of the "personal attacks which put users in danger" policy until well into this discussion. Next time I'll make sure to read all relevant policy pages carefully before jumping into a sensitive discussion. - Haukurth 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone was ever "question[ing] the right to even debate this block." But it should be quite obvious there are more and less suitable ways to engage in honest and respectful debate, at whatever juncture. El_C 01:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Above, BrianGotts wrote, "The fact that this debate is even taking place is distatsteful in the extreme. On this issue there should be no debate between reasonable people." — Matt Crypto 01:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Which can mean that he, similarly to myself, shares a deep dissatifaction with this debate and how it has been conducted — not the right to debate it per se., but as I mention above, alluding rather to what consensus deems an honest and respectful debate, at whatever juncture. El_C 01:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"On this issue there should be no debate between reasonable people" seems clear enough a comment. — Matt Crypto 02:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't find that to negate freedom of debate, and what this issue is precisely, may not be as clear cut as it seems. El_C 03:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A) The quoted comment is crystal clear. B) It seems to me that this discussion has been, at least from the side of those opposing the block (some notable exceptions on the other side), conducted with a remarkable degree of civility. One of the people who has behaved worst of all is actually El C, ironically, with his accusations of bad faith against everyone making the opposing argument. So I find it incomprehensible that there should be an even higher standard of civility from those opposing the block than that shown here. Everyking 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think I entertain any of that seriously, Everyking, you are very much mistaken. But thanks for the notoriously unselective, highly insensitive same-old from your end. El_C 09:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

El C -- you've chosen to fight a peculiar battle here. You've challenged me about whether anyone had questioned the right to debate this block. I've given you, as Everyking notes, a 100% crystal clear quote from someone who did just that. I've no idea what your agenda is here, but please stop. — Matt Crypto 09:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm finished with your provocations, or to quote yourself: "I have no further interest in your comments." El_C 09:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. El C's "peculiar" line of commentary has been nothing more than flamebaiting to imply "some" agenda on the part of anyone who doesnt just join in the chorus. He may as well have said "those who are not with us are against us." -St|eve 22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Nothing more." So they all agree. Bravo. El_C 01:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

For clarification: I never said you didn't have a "right" to debate this matter. What I said was that there can be no debate on this between reasonable people. You have a right to believe and debate anything you wish, no matter how unreasonable I think that makes you. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements and casting me as some kind of fascist. --Briangotts (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thought for next time: Maybe next time some other Wikipedian will have posted Amalekite's name to a site where neo-Nazis are listed. And then we can ban that other Wikipedian just like we have banned Amalekite. On the same grounds: Some people dislike neo-Nazis so much that neo-Nazis and those identified as neo-Nazis do and should fear assault and battery. Hmmm! But wait a sec! We have identified Amalekite here as a neo-Nazi! So we have already placed him in danger! I have given this careful consideration and reckon anyone who does not agree with the Chomskian point [that one should defend another's right to say what he wants even if the view is not shared] should be taken outside and shot. (Err, joke!) Too much thought police, people. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Paul Beardsell,

Please do not "argue how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin". SlimVirgin did the right thing. We all know that she did. She is a very good Admin, and Wikipedia is very well served by her kind service.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 11:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely that SlimVirgin is a great admin. Although I disagreed with the block, her responses were consistently helpful, courteous and rational. Not everyone agrees that the block was the right thing, though, all though it seems that a majority do. — Matt Crypto 12:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I do no such thing. I am not theorising, my argument is practical. You plainly are wrong to identify everyone as agreeing with the banning. There is a majority opinion, but no consensus. But why don't you address the point I make? We only ban those who place others in danger if we agree with the POV of the endangered? Surely not! Not that that is really my point. I just want everyone to be heard, even those I disagree with. Even you, Mr Armchair. It seems you will not pay me the same courtesy. Essentially you have just told me to shut up because you don't like what I say. Paul Beardsell 11:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I had a problem with the banning based on the list posted, but after reviewing the forum where it was posted, I found out that the other stuff he has posted were much worst, and then, we find out that the guy is really a neo-NAZI(Linder). Let me ask you something. Would you permit someone who screams death to the Jews without even managing himself, participate in Wikipedia? This is not about him thinking Jews or Blacks as inferiors, for all I care what his belief might be... but when it is an idiot that is perturbed enough to make statements asking for war or destruction of a people, I ask myself, why would this guy even want to participate in Wikipedia, a community, whos members he hate? While the first motivation for his banning may be questioned by some; knowing who is hidden under his alias, I don't think this individual should be protected by any members. There is various members debating here about the banning, of who afteral? A hate mongering person that should have no place in here? Just read the other forum, even a moderator from that racist forum questioned his conduct, why should we not? This guy is undesirable, and it was a good riddance, after knowing who he is, the discussion should have ended on this. Fadix 16:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

(And I am sure that SlimVirgin doesn't think that me disagreeing with her is anything personal. Paul Beardsell 12:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC))

My thoughts

I'm biased, but I strongly support the indefinite blocking/banning of this user. He has stated his intent to push his POV and disrupt Wikipedia. This kind of user should be blocked pre-emptively. Andre (talk) 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

If you read his original, pre-infinite block statements, the motivation he cites is to remove bias, and specifically requested that those who joined him in his mission take care NOT to disrupt Wikipedia. We must recognize that everyone has a POV that they advance, intentionally or not, and that those who participate fairly and within the rules should be welcomed. Then we can address the only possibly legitimate reason for this ban; whether he made any significant threats against anyone or placed anyone in danger, or if indirectly scaring someone is enough to ban him. Unfocused 02:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If you follow his edits, there's a clear difference between his claim to be interested in removing bias and his insistence upon inserting bias. Tomer ^TALK 04:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through his edits, and, at least to me, they seem to be an attempt at removing bias. He wasn't always very good at this, but I don't think it's fair to say that he was clearly trying to push a POV into articles, rather than bring about NPOV. Before his ban, he wasn't asking people to disrupt Wikipedia. In fact, he explicitly told others on Stormfront to follow Wikipedia rules, write from the NPOV, and avoid insults and personal attacks. His reasoning was that, if they broke the rules, then they'd be giving anti-Nazis an excuse to ban them. — Matt Crypto 08:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that he was not asking people to disrupt WP prior to his ban is patently false. In point of fact, since his ban from WP, he's been incredibly quiet on the subject of WP, on both the Stormfront and VNN fora. The claims you're making are disingenuous at best, and border on outright lies. Tomer ^TALK 08:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ouch, please lay off the personal attacks. Back up what you say if what I say is "patently false". Where, before he was banned, was he asking people to disrupt Wikipedia? (He wasn't doing so on the thread I read at StormFront, but I might have missed something.) — Matt Crypto 09:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just a bit more than mildly annoyed that what I said was misinterpreted as a personal attack...but not enough to bother rebutting it at 4:30 AM... So, let me apologize for any statements taken as incivil, and I'll address the relevant issue tomorrow (I'm going to bed now tho). Ciao. -t Tomer ^TALK 09:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that when you said my claims were disingenuous and "bordered on outright lies", that that was a personal attack. I wouldn't have minded if you'd just stuck to saying they were patently false, but you questioned my integrity, which I think is unfair. But a flame war doesn't serve any purpose here. Honestly, I have looked at what Amalekite wrote on StormFront, and I've tried to keep an open mind. In his delusion, Amalekite imagined a "Zionist cabal" controlling Wikipedia and ensuring it reflected their paricular bias. Certainly, his mindless anti-Semitic witterings were both obnoxious and laughable, but he seemed to be calling for people with similar opinions to go and oppose this purpoted "cabal", but to do so within the rules of the system ("follow the rules of the place", "try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View"). At least, that's how I read it, and I tried to stay open-minded, despite the abhorrence I feel towards Nazism. I think the argument that he made "personal attacks that place users in danger" is much stronger than the argument that he was trying to disrupt Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 09:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The passage in question: However, if you're going to join in on editing the Mullins article (which I hope you do), follow the rules of the place - no insults or personal attacks, no Jew-bashing (though they so richly deserve it), try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV), and stay cool, no matter how hard they push your buttons. Otherwise, you'll blow your lid and they'll just resort to the classic trick of labelling you an "anti-Semite" or a "neo-Nazi" and using that as a pretext for censoring everything you say. This reminds me of a spy film, in which our heroes, the white supremacists, are undercover in the dangerous Jew-infested Wikipedia: "follow NPOV or you'll blow our cover!" I think it's clear that Frank Sinatra is saying that they should go through all the motions of following the rules, while sneakily countering the so-called Jewish influence on articles. (Also, I'm somewhat disappointed I didn't make the list of elders.) Aside from that, I think it's also possible that Mr. Sinatra is a troll, and not a white supremacist at all. I am led to believe this by the following snippet from the thread: Maybe it's the same thing as when niggers call each other "nigger" (of course, calling each other "nigger" doesn't change the fact that they're, well, niggers, and as such, are about 10 times more likely than a white person to commit a violent criminal offense). Maybe we should start calling each "honkey" and "gringo"? What say you, honkey? Andre (talk) 19:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Sinatra is a troll and a white supremacist? Etikelama 15:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Frank Sinatra" is "Amalekite" is "Alex Linder". This is fairly well established here. Tomer ^TALK 20:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Blocks vs. Bans

The block against the above user was valid. A "ban" however was not, as it was imposed only by a sysop action, based on reasons which are debatable. An Arbcom review should be normal procedure, and could either transform the block to a ban, or overturn the block. Of course Im debating the issue in "unsuitable ways" merely for saying the above. -St|eve 22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Danger?

Has anyone read the Stomrfront forum thread? The biggest danger from those guys is that they'll bore you to death. Rich Farmbrough 15:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Indefinitely Blocking a Troll?

This is a request for a clarification of this policy from someone who is more familiar with its intent than I am. Should an admin be allowed to block permanently or indefinitely a user whom two admins agree is a troll? This user in question is currently the subject of a user conduct RfC. I consider the user to be bizarre. Other editors have characterized him as a troll. However, I disagree with the idea that an admin should be able to block him indefinitely. I see that admins may block named users or IP addresses for vandalism, 3RR, personal attacks, or threats. I do not see "being a troll" as a reason for an admin to block a user indefinitely. If the troll engages in vandalism or personal attacks, the troll can be blocked for that purpose. It was my understanding that the ArbCom was the primary means to deal with trolls. If that is an admin function, then perhaps we can discuss whether that gives 500 admins too much power. Robert McClenon 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What policy? My browser tells me that the word "troll" does not appear anywhere on this page (Wikipedia:Blocking policy) and I can't find anything relevant except for disruptive behaviour. The disruptive behaviour provision requires the disruptive behaviour to be objectively defined by other policies. Wikipedia:What is a troll says:

The status of this policy is disputed. Please do not edit the header on this page until more discussion has taken place as to the official status of the policy.

Indeed, there is no provision for blocking a user simply because he is a troll. However, disruption and vandalism are valid block reasons (though blocks under the former are often disputed); it is the responsibility of the arbcom to deal with more subtle trolling. — Dan | Talk 06:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

We have never been able to agree on what a "troll" is. Therefore, we have never been able to agree on blocking policies related to "trolls" and "trolling." Many "trolling" behaviors are policy violations and, particularly when a user has made no constructive edits, a case for a block can be made based on this. Less clear cases go to the AC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)