User talk:Zog/ban

Note: Zog also has the account User:BaboonMouth (contribs), several contributions from which have already been deleted for being in blatantly bad taste (e.g., adding photos of monkeys to articles on prominent African-Americans).

Apparently the same user has also used the User names Anti-Zog, Niggardly and JamesERay

Note: some people believe that recent edits made by 131.247.157.27 were also made by Zog prior to logging in. (This is very likely, as this IP address was used for Zog's most recent edits. --Brion 02:48 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC))

Also note that material has largely been consolidated here (badly) from other locations.

The issue has also been raised on the mailing list:

I don't see how this is vandalism, really. Patently offensive, sure, but there are plenty of other wikipedia pages that are like that while still being informative. Can't the article just be edited instead of deleted? Just my $0.02 -- Wapcaplet

I am requesting that User:Zog be banned. Within Zog's first 24-hours, Zog wrote the following:

  1. History of Cuba: Although Mexico is spanish-speaking, like Cuba, the filth level is considerably higher. As one prominent historian comments "Cuba is just like Mexico, minus the filth, tequila and the stench of poverty."
  2. Capitalism: One of the main reason for this unequal distribution of wealth is because the J's hoarde everything away under their synagogues, as documented in various historical texts as "Mein Komf" and "Rethinking Zionism"
  3. History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union: Marx, was of course, a jew, which is why he knew so much about money.
  4. See: Johnny Rebel page history

Also, Zog's user name is offensive. See: ZOG. Kingturtle 04:20 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC) P.S. An hour after 131.247.157.27 wrote in Capitalism that Capitalism was obviously developed by the jews for the jews in order to further the goals of the ZOG machine, User:Zog was created. Kingturtle 05:40 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with ZOG. Granted, the term "Zionist Occupation Goverment" might be offensive to some, but the user is not a vandal. In regards to the above points:

  1. If Zog can attribute this quote, then why should it not be valid? Cuba does not have the same poverty problems as mexico.
  2. Although Zog may have added this information to the wrong section, many neo-Nazis argue that capitalism is a jewish conspiracy. It is our job to explain why neo-Nazis think the things they think.
  3. The fact that Marx was a jew, may not be true, but it is something Hitler and many neo-Nazis believe
  4. The Johnny Rebel page, while on an offensive subject, was not written in excessively POV terms, and ZOG's reverts were not retaliations against users NPOVing, but simply against the deletion of information without explanation

Ril

He's "not a vandal"?? How about this edit from Zog, also in History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union:

Once the jews discovered diamonds in this area, they staked their claim to the land and pretended like they belonged there all along. Although Adolph Hitler was, in many ways, unpopular in terms of his ethics and morals, he was rather effective in his campaigns against the jews.

I mean, come on. If this isn't vandalism then what is?

Evercat

Hi Zog. Please understand that although Wikipedia welcomes contributors, nakedly racist or offensive edits are not permitted here. If you have difficulty in understanding this, please say so and we will explain it to you. You will find that this is a friendly and welcoming community. However, we will not tolerate racism or vandalism. Tannin 08:29 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Zog.
A number of Wikipedians have requested that you be banned. I have moved related conversations to User talk:Zog/ban, which I invite you to read and respond to.

I urge you to take the time to consider people's words carefully before responding. I know from personal experience how unpleasant it is to be threatened with a ban, and I know how angry it can make one feel. However, flying off the handle is unlikely to help!

If you feel that you would like an "advocate" to represent you, please feel free to contact me, in private, at [email protected].

Yours faithfully,
Martin

Btw, Zog's IP appears to have been blocked, assuming that it is 131.247.157.27. I agree that a number of edits made to other articles, both under the username and under the IP, were unacceptable, and I feel that a week long ban is not an unreasonable response to this. However, I personally would not support a longer ban. Martin 14:40 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not sure what the user did to deserve a ban in the first place, and all his contributions seem to be now PC (Note: PC for the majority of America, at this time and place in history) Zog

Zog, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? -- sannse 17:11 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin and Danny repeatedly delete an article which several people have contributed to for absolutely no reason. After being asked to provide sufficient documentation for the information, I did so, without so much as a response from the two users (except for them deleting the article once again. Zog

The entire edit history for User:Zog appears to consist of nothing but racist diatribes. - Hephaestos 18:15 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

I might be excessively conspiratorial, but I'm under the suspicion that Zog is Lir/Vera out for revenge. Is anyone else? 172

  • I have just been trying to read them (my browser is giving me hell at the moment. That is about all I can do!) And yes, it is repulsive rascism that needs needs to have a Donald Rumsfeld done on it. ÉÍREman 01:34 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
  • My edits have been deleted by various users and all the facts in my articles have been backed by sources (which is more than what can be said about the majority of your contributions which read like recycled Florida high school papers). zog

As for the name Zog, see my comments on the Rebel page. In the TMC debate, it was discussed how certain names obviously would not be allowed, like "gasjews" or "killfagsdead." ZOG is just such a name. Zog denies having known it, but he actually used it in this capacity in an earlier draft of the article. See my comments on this in the mailing list and the Johnny Rebel page. Can this name be removed? Danny

Yes - it can be changed just like TMC's user name was changed. Motive doesn't matter as far as "offensiveness" of a user name is concerned but since it is obvious that Zog knew what the name means then that just makes your case that much stronger. --mav

Why should we even bother to dignify this user by responding to him/her? Remove this crap right away. 172

I understand that some people attack this article because they believe its a POV article. While I disagree, I am open to people's changes to this article. Yet, there have been no attempts to do so, just requests to have it deleted. If there is a problem with the article, then make changes to it, don't mindlessly delete it because you are too lazy to make the neccesary changes. -- Zog

Zog, the first thing you will need to do is stop deleting people's comments on talk pages. Leaving other people's comments intact is one of the very few really firm rules around here.

Secondy, you will have to persuade people that you really do have something useful to contribute to this community. There is, no doubt, a case to be made for including material on the subjects you seem to be interested in. However, given that you have already posted blatantly racist things several times, and not bothered to post anything that wasn't, at least in part, racist or offensive, I don't really see how you can repair your reputation. I think your only real option is to find another web site, where your views are more welcome. Tannin 00:40 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, the very fact that my "opinions" are not welcome here probably reinforces my need to stay here. I will not skew information to make it more "welcome" to your obviously biased ears. Race seems to be such an overly-sensitive issue here in America that any mention of it causes one to be referred to as a "racist". - Zog

I am not American. Tannin

If we were offended with named like Throbbing Monster Cock, I can assure you that Zog is no tribute to the former King of Albania. In far right neo-Nazi circles, it is an anti-semitic initialisation for Zionist Occupation Government, a conspiracy theory which alleges that a cabal of Jews control the US government. I find that highly offensive. Danny

??? Wow, how do YOU know so much about this conspiracy theory? I'm sure you could take any three initials of one's name and make it into an initialisation for something (which you obviously have). I was unaware of this 'ZOG', and you apparently need to spend less time obsessing over conspiracy theories (as well creating them) and actually contribute something useful Zog

In my school, "Zog" was a derisive term for a geek. We geeks used to regularly get zogged out in front of a good computer game in the "Zog B's" (that's computer building). Further, I note that "Throbbing Monster Cock"'s username was changed to the acronym TMC - this initialisation being considered inoffensive. Danny - I think your opinion of Zog's edits is colouring your opinion of hir username.

Martin, that is totally ridiculous. We are talking about an American here, not someone using British slang. We are talking about a declared racist. Try this website for some info into the language they use: http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/acronyms_zog.asp (and this is not an endorsement of the ADL either). You may also want to try this: http://www.orionknights.com/ARK/zionist_occupation_government.htm and this about England: http://www.skrewdriver.net/zog.html I teach about and develop curricula on racism for a profession. I have also seen his edits of last night, which were racist, anti-Semitic and inflamatory (and which I promptly removed). It is not my dislike of the article. My contention is based on the language he uses and its comparison with the terminology used in hate movements, as well as his name. Once again, I vote for ridding ourselves of this user. Danny

You can dislike me, that is fine. However, deleting every article simply because it is written by an author who you dislike is EXTREMELY biased. Rudyard Kipling was an avid racist, but I don't recall censoring his material, nor do we ignore his valuable contributions that he has made throughout his career. ) - Zog

Acronym Finder lists "Zionist Occupational Government" as the only entry for "zog" [1], and a Google search for "zog" and "jewish" turns up many predictable results. Combined with this user's contributions, it's reasonable for Danny to make that assumption. Now, whether or not Zog intended this, I can't say. -- Stephen Gilbert 01:09 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I have found this in the original draft of Johnny Rebel, in which Zog quote David Duke waxing poetic about Johnny Rebel.

JR is recognize by such prominent political figures like David Duke, who has this to say about JR: "I have been in politics for several decades and I will be in for several more, but I always will never be able to articulate the way ZOG controls the media, the coloreds want their hand-outs and how chimps DO, in fact, want their 'ugly stick' as well as JR has. I hate to say this, but my political career is but a blink in history, while JR's inspiring music will be something cherished by generation after generation."

Despite his bullshit above that he did not even know what ZOG was, here he was using the term in its anti-Semitic context in a quote. Zog should be banned. Even his name is highly offensive. Danny

Johnny Rebel is currently home to an edit war. Apparently, ol' JR is a racist musician. User:Zog is the originator of the article. Many Wikipedians find it offensive, while others are demanding sources for the information provided, being unable to find any through their own searches. -- Stephen Gilbert 01:27 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

My opinion, is that references to the "Johnny Rebel Band" and "the gay pornography industry" have no place in an article about Johnny Rebel . Danny fails to realize this and continues to vandalize the site without citing reasons for him doing so

My opinion, copied from the relevant talk page: If some totally obscure singer writes a whole bunch of songs with racist titles, in my opinion they are not appropriate for an article here, as it seems to amount to getting a racist message on Wikipedia by stealth. A small sample of his titles should be sufficient. The whole list is unnecessary, and in my opinion, Zog is giving the whole list for entirely dubious reasons. His posting history shows the truth. -- Evercat

Mind you, it is quite common in wikipedia to list all the songs of an album, see The Ramones (album) and More Specials. Kingturtle 02:56 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
I guess my response is that we need to balance the value of a complete song list against the racist messages contained in the titles. Since this singer seems to be pretty obscure, I think the balance favours against a full list. -- Evercat


... Jaknouse, you're right, your comments ARE highly POV. zog

And so are some of yours. Please review NPOV. --cprompt

While some of my work can be considered POV (although it has all been edited if it has), I have never gone so far as to ignorantly say that a group of people are "pinheads" and that learning more about a subject will cause you indigestion zog

No, rather than calling them pinheads, you'd much rather take Rebel's advice, perhaps from his song "Coon Shootin' Boogie" ... Danny

ZOG, FYI, I restrict my POV statements to talk pages. I am very careful about NPOV in the articles. jaknouse 03:44 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

My policy with regard to Zog, Nazis, KKK, and other racists--do NOT give them a forum. Any forum. I will not engage them in dialogue because that gives them legitimacy. I will not engage a user who calls himself "Zionist Occupation Government" (meaning the "Jew-dominated" government of the US), legitimacy by arguing with him. I will not even give him legitimacy by selecting what is usable from his additions. Chaco War, yes, but History of Cuba, no? No. They add it--I erase it. Danny

I might be excessively conspiratorial, but I'm under the suspicion that Zog is Lir/Vera out for revenge. Is anyone else? 172

I do know that Ril is Lir, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if John Stewart was. -- Zoe
Maybe so, maybe no. Either way someone making that much trouble and wasting that much of our time has to go. Derek Ross
What Derek and Zoe said. My feeling is that Zog is a different one entirely. Vera was a gadfly, not a blowfly. Tannin

Danny, as repugnant as User:ZOG is, he's actually adding something valid (and accrate) to this article.

What's wrong with these edits?

"The war also had immediate political ramifications for Bolivia, as the (perceived) mis-management of the war by Salamanca led his own generals to capture him, and force him to step down from presidency."

"Many middle-class Bolivians were humiliated by Bolivia's quick military defeating during the Chaco War which led to a mass movement away from the traditional order known as the "Generacion del Chaco", which was epitomized by the MNR-led Revolution of 1952."

172

172 must be wrong, because I strongly agree with him. Ril

I'm sure Danny would agree that everything Zog has added is not useless. The above does not look out-of-bounds to me and I would have never given that edit a second thought had I not been aware that Zog was in an edit war. --mav

It is a common strategy to include, among many disruptive posts, one or two genuine posts allowing the user to feign legitimacy. I've witnessed that strategy on wikipedia. See User:Olga Bityerkokoff's edits to Citroën 2CV and 1956 in literature. Kingturtle 05:03 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Wow, and some people have called me a conspiracy theorist. This especially does not make sense regarding myself as Danny was the one recklessly deleting my contributions without reason, while I was simply adding a few remarks on a subject I actually care about
  zog
I concur with zog. Danny was recklessly reverting zog's edits because the wiki has developed a policy of "troll persecution" whereby a member of the cabal cries "troll!" and the immediate response is a vigorous persecution. Some effort needs to be made to edit articles that a user doesn't like, rather than simply deleting the information present. Another good example of this is at black rage where information was once again deleted without explanation by the sysop aristocracy. Ril

Maybe its not a strategy, its probably best if the wiki stop referring to "trolls" and "vandals" and considering such people to be part of a conspiracy to destroy the wiki. Ril

My policy with regard to Nazis, KKK, and other racists--do NOT give them a forum. Any forum. I will not engage them in dialogue because that gives them legitimacy. I will not engage a user who calls himself "Zionist Occupation Government" (meaning the "Jew-dominated" government of the US), legitimacy by arguing with them. I will not even give them legitimacy by selecting what is usable from their additions. Chaco War, yes, but History of Cuba, no? No. They add it--I erase it. Danny

If users make some good contributions, some bad contributions, and some ugly contributions, then we should keep the good, fix the bad, and revert the ugly. This is the ideal way to show users what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not. By summarilly reverting everything a user writes, you are giving credence to the idea that "It's going to be reverted anyway, I might as well say what I think". This is a self-fulfilling prophecy - it will create trolls and vandals where previously we only had a new user with an extreme POV.
Wikipedia should not delete contributions because they were made by someone with an extreme POV. I have all kinds of extreme POVs, but it doesn't stop me making generally acceptable edits. Anyway, I'm off now to check through Zog's edits and reinstate the ones that are acceptable. Be seeing you. Martin 11:13 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Danny - I'd like to move some comments here to User talk:Zog/ban. In view of your comments here about not wishing to engage, I'd like to give you fair warning first, in case you'd prefer to just delete them. Thanks. Martin 20:49 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I might be excessively conspiratorial, but I'm under the suspicion that Zog is Lir/Vera out for revenge. Is anyone else? 172

Zog is apparently from South Florida University. Was Lir from the same area? Martin


If I may sum up the case for the "prosecution"?

Zog has made a number of edits to articles that are not appropriate for wikipedia because:

These edits were made between 08:12 on the 28th of April and early on the 19th of April. The affected articles included History of Cuba, Capitalism, History of the United States, Johnny Rebel and History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union.

A further issue is Zog's username, which Kingturtle and Danny feel is an initialism for "Zionist Occupation Goverment", which is an offensive term. See also: wikipedia:no offensive usernames, ZOG

Finally, in one instance, Zog deleted the following comment by 172 on talk:Johnny Rebel - "I totally concur. Why should we even bother to dignify this user by responding to him/her? Remove this crap right away.". Zog also deleted some critical comments on this entry.

I will simply quote Jimbo Wales: "I'm satisfied, and this user should be banned." Why hasn't he been banned already? Danny

Because only users with "developer" access can ban logged in users, and no developer has yet done so. Martin 22:35 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Brion, do you have the authority to ban user:zog on user:Jimbo's behalf? Tiles 02:50 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Brion, do you have the authority to ban user:BaboonMouth for bad karma? If he keeps up like this, he'll reincarnate as a dung beetle. Koyaanis Qatsi
Just to clarify so there can be no confusion - Zog is BaboonMouth, as he himself said on User talk:Zog/ban -- Evercat 02:54 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
Just a note to say thank you for removing the nuisance user:zog. It is amazing how one nutcase can cause so much chaos. The flow of Recent Changes has been much more calm and orderly since its departure. Tiles 08:15 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

He just uploaded this picture of a monkey. He then linked to the image from civil rights activist Rosa Parks. I don't see how his behaviour is improving. Ban now. -- Evercat 01:35 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Zog also did a similar stunt with the MLK article. Kingturtle 02:16 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Ya know, 10 minutes ago I would've been prepared to defend Zog, but this is getting ridiculous. Zog, let it rest already! Wikipedia is about cooperating, and if you're going to get in an edit war with everyone who finds issues with your contributions, you're not helping anyone. I vote for ban, if the edit/revert wars don't stop. -- Wapcaplet

I have a similar perspective: as at 22:00 Apr 29, Zog's behaviour seemed to be improving. Sadly his behaviour today has been yet again completely unacceptable, and I support this ban. Martin
Is the "if" clause really necessary? I think we've seen his true colours now (see above). He's had quite a while to change his ways, and he's gotten much worse. -- Evercat 02:21 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

This is not even debatable. Zog's comments are racist, partisan, offensive and illegal in some coutries where this website is accessible. -- David Stewart

I have decided to change my "offensive" name and comply to whatever facist PC demands you guys have BaboonMouth

Remove yourself from the wikipedia. There must be a developer on line by now, why hasn't this character been banned? Tiles 02:45 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Username Zog and last used IP address are banned. --Brion 02:48 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Howabout his new name BaboonMouth? -- Evercat 02:49 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
what he said. Koyaanis Qatsi
What have *I* done under my new name to offend anyone?? BaboonMouth

From Wikipedia:Upload log 

07:14 Apr 30, 2003 BaboonMouth uploaded "Adam.jpg" (Rosa Parks) 
07:13 Apr 30, 2003 BaboonMouth uploaded "Howling_Babboon_Sideview.jpg" (MLK)

The exact same images as uploaded before by "Zog" ... I believe they have now been deleted by JohnOwens --TimmyD 07:26 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, bug in the upload code: didn't check for IP bans if there was a previously validated login session. Should be fixed now. --Brion 07:34 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
Yep, that was me. For some reason, I didn't feel like letting those sit around on the server for long. -- John Owens 07:39 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Why is user:BaboonMouth protected? I was going to redirect it here (or to user:Zog), not least to remove its current content (an insult directed at MLK). User talk:BaboonMouth is also protected - again, I'd like to redirect. Martin

Both are now unprotected. I also blanked the content of user:BaboonMouth -- sannse 19:31 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

For the record, Anti-Zog, a new pseudonym of Zog, briefly logged in around 12:00 today, made a few edits (largely reverted), and left (or was blocked). Martin 13:37 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I've left what's at user:anti-Zog. It's POV, but that's not an issue for user pages. It doesn't contain personal attacks on wikipedians, or foul language, and it's out of the article namespace. So might as well keep it, I figure. You never know, it might encourage Zog to leave. Martin

I know nothing about most of the issues being discussed here. I haven't followed Zog's writings. However, I think people should do a little more research before declaring ZOG an offensive username.

Google returned 34,300 Zog sites with none of the words jew, jewish, zion, or zionist. The text in each of the following sample links is a direct paste from the web page:

I could add scores of other interesting uses of the term ZOG. Yes, it's a politically charged acronym, but it is also the name of the mascot of a fifth grade elementary school class and the name of more than one well known programming language.

Let's be less hasty making these judgments. Arthur 18:24 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I made a similar comment to yours earlier, to Danny, which I've just reinstated above. However, I'm kind of undecided. "Zog" can be a completely innocent word, but equally it's clear that some people find it deeply offensive. Given that, it certainly seems reasonable to ask such a user to change their username, and I'd hope that any user who cares about Wikipedia would consider such a request seriously. We can't effectively ban a username (one can always create "anti-Zog", "z0g", "zoggles", etc) so I think we'll have to rely on community pressure and conflict resolution to find a happy solution. Martin

User:Niggardly goes right for the nigger (word) page, and "protests" the use "of this word in an offensive manner", shortly after User:BaboonMouth made his latest attempt at contribution. Gee, I wonder if there might be a connection. -- John Owens

Also User:JamesERay -- although making an actual minor contribution for a change. I think the sum history of this user warrents banning them under any name. -- Infrogmation 22:17 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
I seem to be missing the evidence that User:JamesERay is Zog... Martin
at http://es.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Usuario_Discusi%F3n:JamesERay, he has posted: Yo mate un "boco del mono" cuarenta anos en el pasado. Tambien, no me gustan los chinos, los arabes, y [especialamente] los judios., which means, "I killed Babboon Mouth 40 years ago. Also, I don't like Chinese, Arabs, and especially Jews." -- Zoe
Also, User:JamesERay has been spotted using the Spanish website. How can this be???

UncleT

On the Spanish website, he has link to THIS site: http://members.odinsrage.com/rebbiker/Pages/AFNFAQNigManual.html

Can't we do something about this foul creature of not agreeing with our political views?! UncleT

I suppose UncleT is yet another Zog username. (from the phrase "Uncle Tom"?) -- Evercat 23:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Could be. Personally I don't care - I'll carry on keeping the good edits, fixing the bad, and reverting the ugly. This keeps things simple.

If Zog comes back under another username and behaves wonderfully, fine. If he leaves forever, that's fine too. If he vandalise pages, then he'll be reverted. I really don't care any which way, save that there should be a record of the discussions somewhere - hence this (30K long) page. Martin

Hi Martin, Just thought I'd explain why I blanked User:JamesERay. As far as I understood things, if someone has been banned then that means that they can no longer contribute. If JamesERay/Zog has been banned then anything he adds to the Wikipedia should be removed, regardless of whether it is in an article or a User page or anything. If you really think it should stay then fair enough, I just don't think we should be sending the message to this person that they can keep coming back and littering the place with their rubbish. Cheers, Ams80 11:19 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

See DissuadeReputation for the theory behind my restoring.
There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what a "ban" might mean in cases where the "banned" user circumvents the IP block. If you want to try and establish such a consensus - good luck... Martin
Actually, there is. The user is banned. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. It was the case with Lir, Helga, Michael, et al. Zog is no different. Danny
People have argued that, certainly. Others have argued that it's entirely reasonable to treat edits on a case-by-case basis. We've never got as far as a consensus on the matter, as far as I can tell.Martin

For the record, having this user on Wikipedia makes me extremely uncomfortable, even more so because people (e.g. Martin) seem to be willing to give him a fair chance. Understand that if you do so, you are also discouraging anyone who isn't a white Christian from being here. I shouldn't have to deal with this shit in order to edit an encyclopedia. It leaves me extremely rattled. Graft

I agree. Perhaps it's time to go to Wikipedia-l to discuss how to resolve the problems. For now, I'll be reverting their racist POV contributions every so often. The Anome 14:16 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree also, and will help out with the reversions. Tannin 14:21 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything (I'm not much for conspiracies), but does anybody find it odd that the only person defending this vile "zog" character is Martin, whose major contributions are on Jewish ethnocentrism??? Just curious. 172

(The above was actually contributed by Rosewood according to the Page History. -- Derek Ross)
No. Martin is not remotely like that. He is trying hard to be fair to a user that ... well, I need not trouble you with the adjectives here; you may choose your own and they will surely fit. My own feeling is that there comes a point where, in fairness to the community as a whole, we simply revert on sight. Zog had his chance - more than one chance - and has demonstrated himself unfit to contribute here in any way. Tannin
I understand that. But, I believe there is a difference between "being fair" and allowing a user to post pics of adolph hitler, and the confederate flag for christ's sakes. Trying to be fair?! After a user posts pictures of baby chimps for the civil rights leader Rosa Parks we should deal with this user in a FAIR manner?! Rosewood
Yes. Absolutely yes. For fairness is the one thing, the only thing, that sets the civilised and decent people of the world apart from the hate-filled scum. Any fool can be fair when not provoked or pressured. The real test of your commitment to fairness and justice is your ability to maintain it under difficult circumstances, and in response to people who do not "deserve" it.
But do not mistake "fairness" for "irresolution" or "weakness". The sensible and fair response to a user who has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that his only purpose here is to spread hate and filth is to revert on sight. Tannin 15:48 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
There's a difference between posting legitimate articles and pictures (and I think that an accurate and representative article on things such as the Confederate Flag and/or Adolf Hitler are exactly the things that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia) and posting junk pictures (such as the monkey for MLKJr and Rosa Parks). Simply because something "bad happened" in our past does not make it right to simply sweep it under the table and pretend it never happened. Informative, well-written articles about controversial topics is what will really help Wikipedia stand out above the rest. Although, from reading this page, and the various "contributions" that Zog/et. al. has made, I think that the admins here have been more than fair and enough is enough. "Thanks for playing! Bye now!" -- TimmyD 15:43 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
I think we all agree that Zog should leave Wikipedia - the difference is how we think that can be best achieved (see meta:bans). However, clearly I'm not convincing anyone here, so I'll give way. Best of luck :) Martin
Martin, in your pondering, remember that wikipedia has no method of banning people so any attempt to do so will have many ways of failing. Wikipedia can only effectively ban IP addresses and usernames, but guessing what person is behind an IP or username remains guessing. -º¡º
Face it, WikiPedia censors anything that's contrary to the liberal agenda. Real encyclopedias don't. LOL 67.10.73.69 06:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]