| Revision as of 18:55, 31 October 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:37, 31 October 2005 edit undoMatt Crypto (talk | contribs)23,089 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :: I'm afraid that's how I judged it happened. I've gone back and looked at User:Homeontherange's posts on the mailing list, and I'm still convinced that the rationale about "personal attacks which put users in danger" was only brought in later, and it seemed very much to me to be a convenient afterthought retroactively justifying the block. Homeontherange only ever justified his or her block on the grounds that Amalekite was inciting a mass Neo-Nazi POV pushing project. Anyway, I'm sick of this issue and angry at the behaviour of some Wikipedians; this is utterly unproductive and destructive, and so I am quite happy to stop claiming anything about it whatsoever and head back to cryptography editing. ] 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | :: I'm afraid that's how I judged it happened. I've gone back and looked at User:Homeontherange's posts on the mailing list, and I'm still convinced that the rationale about "personal attacks which put users in danger" was only brought in later, and it seemed very much to me to be a convenient afterthought retroactively justifying the block. Homeontherange only ever justified his or her block on the grounds that Amalekite was inciting a mass Neo-Nazi POV pushing project. Anyway, I'm sick of this issue and angry at the behaviour of some Wikipedians; this is utterly unproductive and destructive, and so I am quite happy to stop claiming anything about it whatsoever and head back to cryptography editing. ] 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :::It isn't fair to pop up accusing other admins of acting in bad faith, then decide to retreat to crypotography when they defend themselves. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | :::It isn't fair to pop up accusing other admins of acting in bad faith, then decide to retreat to crypotography when they defend themselves. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Perhaps not. Alright, I'll defend my comments, but I think we're flogging a dead horse, and sometimes you should let angry people walk away, rather than pressing them (advice I'll try to take to heart myself). By the way, I wouldn't at this point support the claim that he was blocked solely for his views, but I would support the claim that he was treated very unfairly because of his views. The only utterances I've found ] to have made on the subject strongly implied that Amalekite was originally blocked because he was believed to be calling for an organised Neo-Nazi subversion of Misplaced Pages through POV pushing. That's not a formal criterion for blocking or banning, and there's not much proof that that was what Amalekite was doing in any case. Amalekite's initial invitation was for others on StormFront to edit Misplaced Pages to eliminate what they saw as bias. It is not obvious this call was made in bad faith; indeed, he deliberately asked people to follow the rules, including NPOV. | |||
| :::: When you reblocked on the 23rd, in addition to "disruption", you did mention that he'd posted a "list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the Stormfront" (actually, he just called them "Elders of Misplaced Pages" and Zionist cabalists, but not that they were Jews). However, I think it took until the 26th of August, nearly a week after Amalekite was blocked, for the blocking provision that he'd made a "personal attack that put users in danger" to be made explicit as the grounds for the block. Before that, it was not at all obvious, at least to me, and I was following the debate carefully. The "putting users in danger" provision is a much stronger argument for blocking Amalekite, but it came rather late in the day. | |||
| :::: Therefore, I would argue that Amalekite was blocked initially outside of policy, for reasons that were very much influenced by him being a Neo-Nazi, rather than him calling for disruption and subversion of Wikipeidia as was claimed at first. I'm afraid it looked very much like the "putting users in danger" blocking provision was realised to be the strongest argument for blocking Amalekite, but only after he had been blocked already on different grounds. | |||
| :::: In truth, I don't care much about unfairness perpetrated against an obnoxious character like Amalekite, even though I did advocate for him. I feel that some of the oppose votes are very unfair against Haukurth, however, and that has made me quite cross. Haukurth is a very reasonable and civil editor, and would, I suspect, use admin powers very conservatively -- I doubt he would have unblocked Amalekite as I did, for example. It seems that a section of his opposition oppose in large part because he's taken an unpopular line and made enemies because of it. I think that admins should be judged on how well they can be trusted not to abuse their powers, and not on their opinions on this or that issue. The worst that could happen is that Haukurth would fail to block a Neo-Nazi who was threatening Wikipedians...but there'd be plenty of other admins who would in a heart-beat, so I don't really see the problem. ] 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:37, 31 October 2005
Perhaps we should take this to a talk page (although this debate is getting far too poisonous, and I will probably renew my previous vow to forget about it this ugly mess permanently), but I should point out that you were not the first admin to block Amalekite. User:Homeontherange blocked him four days before you, and gave the edit summary I quoted above. — Matt Crypto 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and he did it because Amalekite, Alex Linder, posted the list of (perceived) Jewish editors to Stormfront, which is what Homeontherange referred to in his block summary. As did I four days later, when you unblocked him without discussing it with the blocking admin. So please stop, once and for all, claiming that he was blocked solely for his views. SlimVirgin 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's how I judged it happened. I've gone back and looked at User:Homeontherange's posts on the mailing list, and I'm still convinced that the rationale about "personal attacks which put users in danger" was only brought in later, and it seemed very much to me to be a convenient afterthought retroactively justifying the block. Homeontherange only ever justified his or her block on the grounds that Amalekite was inciting a mass Neo-Nazi POV pushing project. Anyway, I'm sick of this issue and angry at the behaviour of some Wikipedians; this is utterly unproductive and destructive, and so I am quite happy to stop claiming anything about it whatsoever and head back to cryptography editing. — Matt Crypto 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't fair to pop up accusing other admins of acting in bad faith, then decide to retreat to crypotography when they defend themselves. SlimVirgin 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. Alright, I'll defend my comments, but I think we're flogging a dead horse, and sometimes you should let angry people walk away, rather than pressing them (advice I'll try to take to heart myself). By the way, I wouldn't at this point support the claim that he was blocked solely for his views, but I would support the claim that he was treated very unfairly because of his views. The only utterances I've found User:Homeontherange to have made on the subject strongly implied that Amalekite was originally blocked because he was believed to be calling for an organised Neo-Nazi subversion of Misplaced Pages through POV pushing. That's not a formal criterion for blocking or banning, and there's not much proof that that was what Amalekite was doing in any case. Amalekite's initial invitation was for others on StormFront to edit Misplaced Pages to eliminate what they saw as bias. It is not obvious this call was made in bad faith; indeed, he deliberately asked people to follow the rules, including NPOV.
- When you reblocked on the 23rd, in addition to "disruption", you did mention that he'd posted a "list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the Stormfront" (actually, he just called them "Elders of Misplaced Pages" and Zionist cabalists, but not that they were Jews). However, I think it took until the 26th of August, nearly a week after Amalekite was blocked, for the blocking provision that he'd made a "personal attack that put users in danger" to be made explicit as the grounds for the block. Before that, it was not at all obvious, at least to me, and I was following the debate carefully. The "putting users in danger" provision is a much stronger argument for blocking Amalekite, but it came rather late in the day.
- Therefore, I would argue that Amalekite was blocked initially outside of policy, for reasons that were very much influenced by him being a Neo-Nazi, rather than him calling for disruption and subversion of Wikipeidia as was claimed at first. I'm afraid it looked very much like the "putting users in danger" blocking provision was realised to be the strongest argument for blocking Amalekite, but only after he had been blocked already on different grounds.
- In truth, I don't care much about unfairness perpetrated against an obnoxious character like Amalekite, even though I did advocate for him. I feel that some of the oppose votes are very unfair against Haukurth, however, and that has made me quite cross. Haukurth is a very reasonable and civil editor, and would, I suspect, use admin powers very conservatively -- I doubt he would have unblocked Amalekite as I did, for example. It seems that a section of his opposition oppose in large part because he's taken an unpopular line and made enemies because of it. I think that admins should be judged on how well they can be trusted not to abuse their powers, and not on their opinions on this or that issue. The worst that could happen is that Haukurth would fail to block a Neo-Nazi who was threatening Wikipedians...but there'd be plenty of other admins who would in a heart-beat, so I don't really see the problem. — Matt Crypto 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't fair to pop up accusing other admins of acting in bad faith, then decide to retreat to crypotography when they defend themselves. SlimVirgin 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's how I judged it happened. I've gone back and looked at User:Homeontherange's posts on the mailing list, and I'm still convinced that the rationale about "personal attacks which put users in danger" was only brought in later, and it seemed very much to me to be a convenient afterthought retroactively justifying the block. Homeontherange only ever justified his or her block on the grounds that Amalekite was inciting a mass Neo-Nazi POV pushing project. Anyway, I'm sick of this issue and angry at the behaviour of some Wikipedians; this is utterly unproductive and destructive, and so I am quite happy to stop claiming anything about it whatsoever and head back to cryptography editing. — Matt Crypto 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)