Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Haukurth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Note to Bureaucrat 2 Opposed for judgement, or beliefs? Difference between beliefs and judgement. 3 Judgment -- consequences? 4 Question (reposted from comments) 5 Judgement/Belief. 6 The Spirit of Voltaire is dead, my friends

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:HOTR 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 HOTR 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 ^(talk) 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's how I judged it happened. I've gone back and looked at User:HOTR'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. HOTR 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 ^(talk) 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:HOTR 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia" 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)

Or unblock one who was already blocked. I'm also interested in what he meant by saying neo-Nazi POV ought to be represented on Wikipedia like any other. But hopefully he'll answer that in full himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just addressed both points on the Wikipedia page, I know it's hard to keep track of this massive discussion by now but I hope you'll find my most recent comments. I originally stated that I didn't feel experienced enough to apply the blocking to block anyone. I think unblocking and contesting a blocking admin probably takes even more experience so I'm not planning on doing that either, if the community will trust me with the mop. As for the Neo-Nazi POV I think it should be represented like, for example, the creationism point of view. Those should be relegated to pages specifically about these topics, like neo-nazism and creationism, and not get equal play in articles like Earth and WWII. See my July postings on the mailing list for more thoughts on this issue. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of freedom of speech - we're not proposing that neo-Nazis be prevented from whatever soapboxes can tolerate their foul presence. The issue here is that neo-Nazi ideology calls for falsifying history, which is intolerable in this kind of enterprise. I'm all for promoting a dialectic, but it has to be an honest one. There is no "truthful" average between neo-Nazi positions on say, the Shoah, and what has been proven again and again to be historically true. I don't think that neo-Nazis should be blocked just for their political beliefs (if you can call them that), but for their adherence to policy. There are plenty of articles that present their positions (and effectively refute them). --Leifern 23:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this has much to do with freedom of speech either. As for the Holocaust and our coverage of it I have addressed the matter in detail - in this discussion, on my user page and on the wikien mailing list. Wikipedia should, indeed, present the truth as truth. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Bureaucrat

I strongly request you discount any votes not related to this users ability and discretion towards future admin duties. I think it is very important that the adminship process not be politically motivated, and that no admin candidates be turned down based on their views, rather than their character and actions. Thank you,

Sam Spade 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to the matter of Amalekite: voters have various ways to arrive at a conclusion. Haukurth has taken an unpopular position in a very controversial debate, and some editors feel this exhibits lack of judgement - and judgement is just what one needs as an admin, ranging from vandalism patrol to mediation tasks. I urge the bureaucrat to treat all bona fide votes with equal weight. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As do I. A vote based on ones stance regarding a controversial matter is not bone fide. Its not a vote for adminship, its a partisan witch hunt.Sam Spade 01:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a question of judgment, Sam, not political views. I thought he showed poor judgment over the Alex Linder issue. You disagree and that's fine. I also think he has shown poor judgment in confronting people who voted against him, both here and on other talk pages, and in fact it was his discussions with opponents elsewhere that called attention to the nomination; that was not good judgment given that he should be on his best behavior during a nomination. I feel it was poor judgment getting a family member to set up a user account in order to vote for him. And he has just said that his wife has "contributed through him," so now I'm wondering whether that means more than one person was using his account. Those are the main issues for me, Sam, and they go to the heart of how he might act as an admin. Less pressing issues, but still relevant, are that he doesn't seem to have involved himself in any admin-related activity, and that he has very few edits for someone who has contributed for so long. These are all legitimate reasons to oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you go to my wife's user page you'll understand what I mean by contributing through me - she has taken several niced pictures which I've uploaded through my account. At no point has she used my account directly. I currently have 3042 edits and almost all of them are this year, when I started contributing for real. I did not get a family member to set up a user account to vote for me. Getting an account was entirely Arndís's idea and I warned her against it. I have had strong criticism directed at me during the course of this RFA and I have answered it. I've tried my best to be conciliatory while doing so. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you when you say that Haukur "he has shown poor judgment in confronting people who voted against him". I agree that it often is considered poor form to defend yourself too much on your RfAr. However, there have been a couple of times when I've tried to advocate on his behalf, but you've very clearly expressed that you want to know what Haukur himself thought, and not the opinion of one of his supporters. You said, "I'm happy to debate with Haukur on this page about his views, because it's his nomination" and "Matt, could you please let Haukur respond here, because his views are the only ones that matter". I think it's also important to point out that Haukur has answered people with — what seems to me — incredible restraint and politeness, given what people have charged him with. I think very few Wikipedia admins would have kept their cool so well (but don't let that fool you -- I'm sure that Haukur is a lot more hurt and angry about this than one might infer from his responses). — Matt Crypto 17:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

While I believe that many of the oppose votes are unfair — and I agree entirely with your second sentence, Sam —I don't think bureaucrats should discount them. Many have argued the point that Haukurth's judgment is under question here, and that's their right. People are entitled to their opinions, while we, of course, are entitled to persuade them that they have miscalculated. — Matt Crypto 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly request you discount any votes based on allegations of "powerful cliques", and not related to this users ability and discretion towards future admin duties. I think it is very important that the adminship process not be undermined by beliefs in conspiracies, and that no admin candidates be elected based on claims of cabals. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposed for judgement, or beliefs? Difference between beliefs and judgement.

I don't think Haukurth is being blocked from adminship on a question of his judgement. He's being blocked from adminship for unpopular libertarian anti-censorship beliefs and politics.

Haukurth's belief that someone shouldn't be blocked for having unpopular or even offensive views is why he will be denied this adminship, even though his good judgement allowed him to defer to populist consensus while the discussion was taking place and afterwards.

Judgement was protesting when the first explanation for Amalekite's block was for his Nazi views. Per the block log, this reason cited by User:HOTR was (neo-nazi Troll soliciting other trolls off of Stormfront). We don't censor based on views, even when they're recruiting others of the same view; this was a difficult protest to make, but it was the best possible judgement.

Judgement was deferring to consensus views when, three days after the original block, it was claimed that threats on Stormfront were the "real" reason to block in a retroactive justification.

I'm certain that Haukurth, just like myself, would have been fine with the block of Amalekite if the correct, policy backed block reason was cited in the first place. Instead, the block log said that he was blocked for soliciting other Nazis to post to Wikipedia; the resulting block is clearly on the slippery slope of censorship. That is the reason why there was such a howl of protest when someone of despicable views was blocked! The reason cited by the blocking admins didn't match any good reasons to block. Only three days later was there a valid reason cited. Even though Haukurth and I didn't see the posting of a list of Wikipedia user names as a serious threat (BELIEF), we've both deferred to consensus (JUDGEMENT).

Had someone cited "threats to Wikipedians" or any such thing before the discussion started, blocking Amalekite would have been much less of a big deal, and the discussion would have been much shorter, and Haukurth wouldn't be denied adminship for his political beliefs. Unfocused 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and (sadly) as the person who got this ball rolling, I feel I should explain my position. Like many other people, I did not support the block for the reasons given originally. But as the conversation progressed, and the "hit list" was revealed, I was happy to support the new block that Slim instituted.

In my opinion, it was a clearcut threat to editors. I think that arguing at great length against blocking someone who issued a threat shows bad judgement - and please remember, even Jimbo weighed in in support of that argument. So, no, you are wrong. I did not oppose Haukurth for his belief, but rather because he decided not only that a threat to editors did not deserve a block, but also that he went on the argue that position for several days. To me, that showed bad judgement, and so I opposed his nom. I find it offensive that you choose to (mis)characterise my opinion in that way. Guettarda 14:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you went through almost exactly the same process as I did, maybe in a shorter time. I never argued that a threat to editors did not merit a block - I argued that there was no substantial threat, though I can now accept the argument of threat-by-context as I have elaborated on. I find the difference between our opinions to be one of nuance. Will you consider changing your strong opposition to my nomination? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you think a threat was issued. No threat was issued. This intellectualy dishonest, morally and logically inconsistant blackballing (read McCarthyism) of one of our best editers disappoints me. Sam Spade 15:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt Guettarda, but you're bending the truth to suit your needs. SlimVirgin's second block is the one that referenced the threat, which was the third block of Amalekite. This was not made clear until very late in the discussion.

The discussion then proceeded to whether this list of Wikipedia user names was a credible threat or simply a list of POV-pushing user names, and the discussion was a completely legitmate one where users of good faith disagreed. You even stated above that it was YOUR OPINION that it was a clearcut threat. Do you honestly think that this was not a legitimate discussion to take place? Are you really still willing to oppose Haukurth because he participated in a necessary discussion with an opinion that you disagree with?

Censoring or otherwise hindering the ability of people to discuss the issues of censorship and what consitutes a credible threat freely and openly is wrong. Especially when Amalekite remained blocked the entire time after SlimVirgin's second block, when a legitimate reason was provided.

Haukurth stated his belief (at that time) that the list was harmless, but stated his judgement when he openly and publicly yielded to those who felt more threatened. Despite your attempt to categorize it differently, these are beliefs that you're opposed to. Even while his beliefs remain controversial, his judgement has been impeccable. I am very sad for Wikipedia today. Unfocused 16:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I mixed the sequence up. It also appears that we differ on the meaning of the word "belief". That aside, my opinion/belief/conclusion was based on a mixture of H's actions and conclusions which led me to question his judgement. It had nothing to do with his beliefs, because I know very little about his beliefs. I would support a neo-nazi who showed good judgement, and I would not support an ideological ally who did not. I don't have any reason to distrust H., I don't think he is a bad person, and if this RFA fails (as seems likely) I resolve to wipe the slate clean with respect to negatives, but carry the positives forward. Guettarda 19:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that is what I have been looking to hear. Thank you, Guettarda, for that entirely respectable statement. Sam Spade 20:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judgment -- consequences?

Many people have argued that Haukur should not be an admin because his arguments and convictions in respect to the Amalekite case show that he lacks judgment. However, even some of those people who oppose him have gone on to say that "it isn't that I don't trust you not to abuse admin tools" or "Yes, my strong opposition is based on the position you took, not on anything you've done...As for normal admin duties, I do find you capabale." and "in terms of "normal" admin duties...Haukurth enjoys my complete confidence". So, my question is: in what ways do people believe that Haukur would abuse his admin powers if he had them? Is it just that he would fail to act? What is the potential for harm to Wikipedia that comes from his "lack of judgment" here?

Bad judgment alone isn't a sufficient criterion for opposition, in my view. For example, we would have a problem if people start opposing along the lines of "Oppose. Voted for George Bush, shows severe lack of judgment" or "Oppose. Wastes too much time on IRC, shows lack of judgment" etc. But the essential question is, of course, does Haukur's judgment regarding the blocking of Amalekite affect in any way his ability to carry out admin duties without abusing his position? Given Haukur's statements on this, I think it's obvious that it does not. I would just like to hear what Haukur's opponents fear he would do wrong as an admin, as this has not really been made explicit. — Matt Crypto 17:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Matt, there is a difference between poor judgement outside of Wikipedia and that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikipedians (of which we may not be aware, and which we cannot control) and poor-judgement within Wikipedia. People are concerned about the second kind of poor judgement. Being a sysop is a strange thing. It is and should be the role of a janitor or house-cleaner, doing a lot of menial maintenance work. Nevertheless, it gives people powers they can easily abuse (I learned this the hard way, as I once abused my powers, although unintentionally; people caught my mistake quickly and I was able to reverse it, but it was a lesson to me in being careful). Moreover, like it or not, for some people the position (or "title") gives someone extra cache and prestige. No one wants to ban Haukur from Wikipedia. Let him continue to contribute, make edits, revert vandalism — all the things any Wikipedian can do. Based on his own comments on the voting page, I just have too many concerns about his judgement to give him any more authority. Perhaps over time my view of his judgement will change. Look, it looks like he will be made sysop and I can only beg him to take my comments and those of others like me to heart. But let's say the vote changes. He can still contribute, and petition or be nominated to be sysop later. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but could you outline more specifically what you think he might do? Note that Haukur has said he's not interested in using the admin blocking powers. Still, as a subject specialist, I've found that being able to do certain page moves, delete pages and revert vandalism using rollback to be very useful indeed, and I'm unsure why people would want to deny this to Haukur just because of the Amalekite controversy. — Matt Crypto 18:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question (reposted from comments)

I have a question. It seems that it has been suggested that WPians were put in danger of life-and-limb by having their usernames posted on the Nazi site? Is this what people are saying? I find this dubious -- if the Nazis uncovered that I am a person of color (which I've mentioned on site in passing), the worse they could do is vandalize my user-page, maybe wiki-stalk. Booo!, but hardly fatal, or new. Of course, some have chosen to make their names public on their user-pages, I guess; I really don't understand why one would disclose such personal information here, when random vendettas aren't unheard of. In any case, once the Nazis do anything vandalistic, like any vandal, they can be blocked. If they have a sad desire for real-world violence, and find a target who has chosen to post lots of personal detail here, is it much different than looking in a phone book?

If a botanical Nazi wants to add harmless contributions to flowers, let the idiot do it. Even they deserve the assumption of good faith, site-wise. I voted for Haukurth before this arose, but I let my vote stand in support of freedom of expression. Xoloz 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The danger (as I see it, of course others disagree) is where the list was posted - not on Wikipedia, but on a neo-nazi forum. And while I am sure the vast majority of them are just ordinary people beyond their outlook on life, not all of them are, and nazis and other white supremacists have in the past attracted people who will commit acts of violence. So, if you already believe that Jews should not exist, and someone posts a list of Jews whose power over a major institution must be broken, a lot of them will either laugh or simply grumble the way ordinary people grumble about politicians or something like that. But there may be people who are inclined to convert words into actions, so that action, IMO, put the users into danger. As for figuring out who people are - it isn't that hard. A Wikipedian who happened to know me in real life, even casually, would have no problem identifying me. In addition, of course, people do post their real names and locations. Guettarda 20:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I do. Should I consider User:Spleeman/Sam Spade a real life threat? I am fairly certain I have gotten death threat user page vandalism because of it. Antifa activists are outrageously violent people, as I know from having been friends w a number of ARA Skinheads years ago. Sam Spade 20:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, you're rediscussing whether the threat is real and credible, in response to a good faith editor's question. That's a good thing. You obviously feel that there is enough doubt that it needs an explanation, and that it's OK for you to express your view regarding this in order to convince people who don't agree with you. That's fine, too. Yet Haukurth is being penalized because he also wanted a similar explanation earlier, even though he's already consented to your more fearful view. It doesn't matter whether he agrees that there is a threat or not, he's already consented; yet you're punishing him anyway because regardless of his actions (his consent to your view), you've decided based on what you perceive to be his beliefs. Why discuss it now with anyone if it's such a clear case that you punish those who let you have it your way, yet thought it worth discussion? Unfocused 20:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I might also note that even those who think Haukurth was utterly wrong on this issue concede that banning Amalekite was purely a symbolic gesture. Banning him did not prevent him from posting lists of users on Stormfront. Banning him did not prevent him from reading Wikipedia nor editing Wikipedia as an anon IP or another username (which indeed he is believed to have done. Banning Amalekite was simply for the purposes of sending a message - that his presence was not welcome.

My recollection of the events (at least as publically discussed on the mailing list) have it very unclear at the beginning of all of this that Amalekite was being banned for threatening users. I would not have argued the point nearly as strenuously as Haukurth did, but it was clearly an easy impression to gain at first that Amalekite was being banned for being a Neo-Nazi and for encouraging Stomfront users to edit Wikipedia and try and push their POV. I strongly believe that that is what Haukurth, at the time, thought was going on. Given that, his actions at the time were, I feel, more motivated by a Voltaire-esque desire to back freedom of speech regardless of repugnance of views, and the belief that Wikipedia policy did not cover the ban of a user for what he saw as the reasons given.

My recollection also has it that Amalekite did not explicitly identify that user list as being Jews - he used words along the lines of "Zionist supporters" or something like that. Perhaps, from a Neo-Nazi's lips, that's code for 'Jews', but it's easy, I submit, for one not used to the language used by such people to not see the threat in that. Haukurth may thus be naïve as to the nature of Neo-Nazis, but should such naïveté be an automatic bar to adminship, especially given his vow to respect the consensus of the community even if he disagrees? —Morven 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I also - with trepidation as to the consequences of stating so openly - wonder if part of the antipathy towards Haukurth stems from the belief that he actually is a Neo-Nazi sympathiser, and further wonder if people are - consciously or unconsciously - suspecting such because of his interest in Norse mythology, which was a well-known obsession of the Nazis? —Morven 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judgement/Belief.

I do not believe that I am required to seperate out my understanding of a users judgement from a users beliefs when that user is applying for adminship. If, and this user is not a Nazi, a real life Neo-Nazi applied for adminship, but had previously held to NPOV and listened to consensus and all that other good stuff, I would still vote oppose. This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in free speech. If that means that Nazis feel unwelcome, I'm certain that I'll be able to ignore the world's smallest violin playing in the corner. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've got a nickname to go with that view... What are you saying, really? Are you actually implying Haukurth holds nazi beliefs, or are you engaging in reductio ad absurdum (Godwin's law)? The principle of NPOV overrides any content vote on Wikipedia and even stands above the elusive "consensus" and way above "free speech". Now, RfA isn't about content dispute, so you are free to vote to your own conscience. If you think Haukurth is likely to abuse the few extra privileges held by admins, then you should vote oppose (remember, very very few admin actions are irreversible). — David Remahl 21:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was extremely clear that I didn't believe this user was a Nazi. I am engaging in said reductio. Since we are talking about Nazi's generally, I think I get a pass on Goowin. Also, WP:NPA. I don't propose to remove repugnant Nazi views (though I certainly will make clear that they are held by a small minorty and opposed by the scientific community at large and all the other NPOV stuff), but banning all Nazi users is certainly 5by5 with the NPOV policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'm adressing the meta issue on voting against admins for their belief, and the validity of such. I oppose this nomination because Alex Linder threatened to de-facto murder wikipedia editors and this user just dosen't seem to care enough. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Got it. I still don't understand the reasoning behind voting against someone on RfA simply for his/her beliefs, but I personally wouldn't discount the votes if I was the executing bureaucrat. Further, the idea of it being a "de-facto murder threat" is laughable. If you really believe that's what it was, then a ban from Wikipedia is the silliest follow-up I can imagine. Didn't you think to call the police or to do _anything_ IRL? That could _possibly_ have had some measure of effectiveness. In that case, a block was an incredibly irresponsible response! Finally, banning all Nazi editors would certainly not be in line with the NPOV policy and would seriously threaten the integrity of the whole encyclopaedia. — David Remahl 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear!

Sam Spade 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Didn't stop SS from strongly opposing my own RfA over my beliefs (of course, nuanced somewhat cleverly, but with evidence which I suspect a large number of the 80% who voted support found highly dubious). Convinient double-standards, esp. in trying to push the clique point. El_C 11:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Sam Spade 18:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"What the hell," indeed, SS. El_C 19:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Spirit of Voltaire is dead, my friends

The Spirit of Voltaire is dead, my friends, when we deny an excellent editor the admin toolbox based on his unwillingness to personally censor other users as strictly as others will.

Standing aside while others do their will isn't good enough.

Deferring to those who are distressed isn't good enough.

Simply wanting to discuss a poorly explained user block is apparently a character flaw.

Standing up for the principle of free speech during a discussion is a punishable offense.

Discussing whether a threat is real and credible or not is reprehensible behavior.

How dare you question anyone about the basis of their fears?

How dare you fail to be afraid?

How dare you hold a different view?

You're not prejudiced enough against Nazis!

Even if you defer to others throughout the whole process and to the consensus decision in the end, these are criminal acts that you must repent and beg forgiveness for.

You failed to repent for your free thought.

You failed to beg for forgiveness.

You don't deserve to rollback vandalism, delete and restore pages, delete images, protect Wiki pages against vandalism, or block and unblock users because you expressed a willingness to defer to the judgement of others! Unfocused 17:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Screeds do not help people communicate. If I were on that list, I would have felt threatened. There are more important things than free speech on wikipedia. Allowing Alex Linder to drive away valuable contributors is wrong, regardless of how much we have to limit the Nazi's free speech. Fuck em. They weren't helping anyway. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Have a look again; Haukurth was and remains willing through this entire process to let you block the scary Nazi to assuage your fears, yet Haukurth has been punished because the block was explained poorly and he wanted to discuss it. This is not the free speech of the Nazis I mourn, it is the free speech of reasonable people of good faith who disagree. That, in fact, will drive contributors away far faster and more reliably than the views of any one editor. One editor's views can be rebutted; truth defended, and people are actually inspired to do so, not driven away. Provide punishment for those who merely want to discuss controversial issues and you create a far different environment. Unfocused 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. You express pretty well what bothers me about this whole affair. —Morven 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. He's a victim of the cabal now. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. He's a victim of a disorganized assembly of users acting out of fear. Look at some of the demands and conditions imposed by those who opposed him. Almost all of them commented that it would be wrong for him to let others who are more afraid decide what to do. Almost all of them criticized him for even discussing the issue, and some even criticized him for not being afraid enough. I'm sorry, while I respect the right of others to be afraid, I don't support this demand that everyone must also be afraid. Unfocused 23:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not afraid. I've walked thru urban american ghetto's late at night (sometimes to my own apartment). I've drank till closing time (and a couple hours after w the owners) in an all black bar next to the bus station in chicago (not a nice neighborhood). I am certainly not afraid of some internet nutjob(s) who has left actual death threats on my user page. Nobody, no matter how young or how silly, needs to be afraid of a list containing their netname! Sam Spade 02:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just as I don't support the need for everyone to be just as afraid as those who were scared by the Stormfront posting are, I also do not support the implication in your post that everyone should be just as fearless as you are.

However, if this were as big a deal as those who opposed Haukurth are making it out to be, they should consider removing their names from certain Wikiprojects and having the page histories deleted. After all, we now have conclusive proof that extremists read Wikipedia, too. Unfocused 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would go further, and suggest they contact their local and federal police, and perhaps interpol, regarding this "hitlist", if they feel it presents an obvious life-threatening danger. Sam Spade 16:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside all the other hyperbole and posturing, I'm interested that Unfocused thinks that those who voted against Haukurth's adminship wanted him to be "prejudiced against Nazis", and thus are prejudiced themselves. What view does he think that we should have towards Nazis? Does he think that hatred of and disgust at Nazism are signs of prejudice? if so, then I assume that his own view of Nazis is more favourable? Could he explain that to the rest of us, so that perhaps we can overcome our "prejudice" — our prejudging of the issue? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice — judging prematurely. A lot of people assumed, just because this person holds Nazi beliefs, that the list of editors that he posted could only be interpreted as a "death list", even though there was no tangible evidence of that. That is prejudiced and violates "assume good faith" :-(. — David Remahl 11:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Jack can answer for himself, of course, but perhaps I might add my personal view. You're asking two questions there - one about nazism and one about nazis. The first is an ideology that is now universally derided, for good reasons in my opinion. The other is a group of people who are universally hated. They are still human beings. They are still individuals. They still have good qualities. We shouldn't assume too many things about them because they belong to that group. We shouldn't refer to them as "cretins", "vermin", "a human virus" or "pigs that deserve to die" - all phrases from the Amalekite-debate. Words like these have historically been used to dehumanize people belonging to hated minority groups. We don't need to dehumanize nazis - we wan't to lead them out of hating people because they belong to a particular group. Strongly hating them because they belong to a particular group doesn't send the right message.

"But", you may say, "I hate them because they have loathsome views - they hate people just for how they were born". I'm not saying that isn't an important distinction. But it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make and historically people have been dehumanized for holding ideologies like, e.g. communism. "This is absurd", you may say, "nazis want to kill everyone that isn't like them - that's just not comparable to some other ideology". Perhaps. But there are nazis and there are nazis. The historical nazis never had an outright agenda to eliminate all non-white people - I doubt most members of the NSDAP would have approved of that idea. The idea is found among some neo-nazis but it's something of a fringe view even there. There are very few neo-nazis who praise the Holocaust - it's much more popular among them to deny that it happened. So there are nazis and there are nazis and just because someone reads Stormfront doesn't mean she'll want to kill Jews.

"You're just throwing up dust, Haukur", you may say, "the point is that the particular nazi in question has called for the elimination of just about all non-white people - that in itself means that we can't tolerate him on Wikipedia. You can't expect people to coöperate happily with someone calling for their death." Okay. I'll buy that. Let's try to phrase the rule. "Anyone calling, on or off Wikipedia, for the death of a certain group of people should be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia." That sounds like a reasonable rule to me. I'd even be willing to help enforce it.

Actually I find it a much stronger argument for blocking Alex Linder than the argument that he put people in danger. I think that the people who see his postings on Stormfront as a substantial danger are overestimating the racist movement. You yourself said that this issue was so important that it alone was enough to sway your vote. Now I'll speak just from personal opinion (as a left-libertarian and a pacifist) and I appreciate that people legitimately disagree: I don't think nazism is an important phenomenon in the world today. Just about everyone opposes nazism - it's a ridiculed frinch view with no-one that adheres to it even close to power. It's easy to oppose it - it even feels good. Fascist dictatorship is not a good form of government. Organized discrimination based on race is not good public policy. Killing people because they belong to a certain religion is not a morally sound idea. Indeed.

It is much more important to watch over the people and parties who are actually in power. And those that have a substantial following in elections, even if they are not in power yet. I'm much more concerned with the prime minister of my own country than I am with Alex Linder. Not because I think his views are as wrong but because he is in power. Opposing unadulterated nazism is easy and I'll do that any day with you. But opposing subtle forms of racism and tendencies towards the concentration of power in too few places is a much more difficult and important problem.

But I'm getting off topic and maybe I even missed your point. You were probably saying that it was protecting the safety of Wikipedians that was so important. Certainly. And I still maintain that blocking User:Amalekite (though I am, as I outline above, no longer opposed to it) did absolutely nothing to protect the safety of anyone. Ian, the person who got this issue rolling again during my RFA, even agrees with me on that. His view is that the block, though perhaps useless in itself, was justified by punitive reasons. On some reflection I'll even buy that too. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

One can retain hatred and disgust of Nazism, yet at the same time argue that Nazi editors should be judged on their actions on Wikipedia (or, at most, those actions that directly impact Wikipedia), rather than be prejudged based on their beliefs. There was clearly an element of "your opposition of this Nazi wasn't strong enough, therefore I'll oppose" at work in this RfAr. One example is User:Hipocrite, who was quite explicit about his reason for opposition. He opposed because Haukur "just doesn't seem to care enough" about something he thought to be important: namely, his allegation that "Alex Linder threatened to de-facto murder wikipedia editors". Other editors also clearly stated that they voted oppose based on Haukur's position on the Amalekite blocks, despite having confidence that Haukur would not abuse admin powers.

I'm not surprised at this sort of opposition, to be honest. Linder's views are about as offensive as one could imagine, and it's only natural for people to try and oppose such an individual as vigorously as possible. To some, that might mean opposing the adminship of an editor who advocated for Linder, regardless of the circumstances under which he might have done so, or the relevance of it to adminship in reality. Given the awfulness of the views of someone like Linder, it's even almost excusable, but it remains regrettable. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My reply to Mel Etitis is that I expect all editors to be judged by their behaviors, not their beliefs.

Insert Nazi, Jew, Arab, Serbian, Korean, pacifist, redneck, liberal, communist, teenager or any other group identification you desire into the paragraph below:

If a known ____________ contributes here and maintains NPOV in all his edits, then we do not have a problem. Even if a ____________ inserts ____________ POV, discusses objections to his changes, and accepts consensus decisions, then we do not have a problem, we have a reason for "watchlists" and "user contributions" pages. If a ____________ inserts ____________ POV and refuses to accept consensus, then we take them to dispute resolution, and if that fails, we show them the exit.

Specifically regarding the Alex Linder issue and any similar issue that may come up, we allow those who are most cautious to make the first move, but we require them to fully explain and discuss the reasons for their actions. ("The first move", in this case, means "block the user".) We do NOT punish them for being cautious, as long as they're willing to accept the consensus decision that results from the discussion, regardless of their beliefs.

We do NOT insist that everyone must be equally cautious, nor do we insist that everyone empowered would agree to take the same action on sight because the most cautious admins are always free to take first action. We do not avoid a discussion, nor punish those who participate in them, as long as they're willing to accept the consensus decision that results from the discussion, regardless of their beliefs.

Just as we don't expect every admin to be the first to block vandals, or even agree on which posters are vandals, we cannot expect any one admin to block all vandals. We don't expect every admin to agree on when a page needs protection, or even agree when a page needs protection; we cannot expect any one admin to protect every page. We let the most cautious act, and explain their actions. We assume good faith among the admins, yet ask them to seek consensus through discussions.

These are the only fair and reasonable ways to deal with incidents such as the Alex Linder/Amalekite incident.

The consensus in the Alex Linder/Amalekite issue was that, yes, we will block him because some were fearful that his posting of a list of what he called POV pushers could be interpreted in a more threatening way. Yet User:Haukurth has been punished by denial of adminship, only because he expected a full, policy-correct, and complete explanation from the blocking admins, and wanted to discuss the reasons for the block. This is why I posted that the "Spirit of Voltaire" is dead in response to the opposition to Haukurth's adminship. Unfocused 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm taken aback at the number of people whose responses depend wholly on their assumptions that those who objected to the posting of a list of Jewish editors' names to a violent white-supremacists' Web site was either unthinking or plain bad faith. In the face of most of the above, further discussion is pointless. The main exceptions were Unfocused, whose initial hyperbole sparked my message, and Haukurth himself, both of whom offer sensible arguments. I still don't agree, though. Perhaps the biggest point of disagreement lies in the assumption that being made an admin is an important promotion, a sort of Civil-Service style promotion that every editor is entitled to at some stage, so that not gettig it is a huge slap in the face. I'm also worried at a lack of empathy with editors who felt threatened (and I'm afraid that the threat of fringe racist groups should also not be underestimated; it's easy for white, non-Jewish people not to notice the racism around them, but I've seen it in action myself, and have friends and colleagues who have experienced it more directly).

At the heart of most of the discussion, though, is in fact an unreflective (at least, there's no sign of any reflection) free-speech-worship. Freedom of speech is important, and intolerance of what is wrong is also important. When what is wrong is speech, there are various options. If people are expressing opinions, then being intolerant involves arguing against them; when it consists in incitement to violence, the attempt to intimidate to create fear, etc. (to use a technical term, when it's performative), then it's at the same level as a physical attack, and intolerance means stopping it.

If people here disagree with this, then I'm at a loss as to what it is about speech that means that its freedom is so different from any other human activity. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any proof whatsoever that Stormfront is actually "violent" in anything other than words? If such proof exists, I never saw it come up even once in the Amalekite discussion.

Being an admin is supposed to be "no big deal" but you and people who share your viewpoint have made it seem like it would be the end of the world if someone who openly and publicly defers to you regarding these perceived threats becomes admin. You make it seem like it would be the end of civilization if we actually want to discuss these issues, all while deferring to your more cautious state. Even if Stormfront is proven to be a source of real violence, I would expect that to be discussed fully so that others who don't already know it can be informed.

I'm sorry that you don't see the importance of being able to freely discuss these issues. That saddens me in a deep and profound way. It seems you want everyone to agree with you regarding what is wrong. I see no problem with that, but there is a problem in that you leave no route to reach that end. How could anyone reach consensus if, as you say, it's not acceptable to discuss?

I have no problem with Amalekite being blocked, once the "real" reason was cited, and I have no problem with Amalekite remaining blocked during the discussion, and now remaining blocked per consensus.

And regarding your feelings of persecution; the bias and racism you see and feel certainly aren't the only instances of it in the world. I've seen and experienced bias and racism, and that's exactly why discussing these issues is so critical. Reflecting racism and bias back at the perpetrators creates two racists where there was one, builds walls between people, and prevents a solution to the original racism. Facing racism with racism is simple moral bankruptcy, nothing more. As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind." Unfocused 19:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly taking a break now - but since I see you philosophers are still at it I thought I'd throw in my two farthings.

I'm very sorry if someone felt threatened by Amalekite's postings. If anyone at any time during the affair came forward and said: "I'm on that list and I'm afraid" then I'm very sorry if I didn't seem supportive. Did that happen? I don't remember it. It seemed to me that the "danger" was always presented as something theoretical - never as something any particular person was actually in a state of fear over. Perhaps someone was and I didn't take it seriously enough.

I still think that people seeing substantial danger are overestimating the impact of racist web forums and perhaps, to some extent, misunderstanding their nature. Open web forums are not places where physical assaults are planned. And as for Mel Etitis's comment that "drooling cretins" read such forums and may get ideas about attacking Wikipedians - that brings me to the heart of what I want to discuss now: Those same people read Wikipedia too. Let me quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of their own heart?

And if only there were evil people somewhere reading evil websites and we could just keep them out of our own good website... But that's exactly what we can't do. The line dividing good and evil cuts through Wikipedia too. There are racists reading Wikipedia as we speak - even some of the people Mel Etitis envisions as "drooling cretins" do it. There are also racists who contribute to Wikipedia. There are racists who think that Wikipedia is a pretty good idea and even Alex Linder, after his ban, wrote that "there may be hope for it yet".

Conversely there are also largely good people who, for whatever reasons, read and contribute to Stormfront. If anyone thinks that's the nastiest place on the web then she hasn't been around much. Posting someone's Wikipedia-username there, even accompanied by racial slurs and some general nastiness, doesn't put anyone in danger - or at least no more danger than going outside tomorrow and travelling to work does. And if it did put someone in danger then banning User:Amalekite should surely have been only the first step and then something should actually have been done about the danger.

I didn't want adminship as a "Civil-Service style promotion" (and I somewhat resent the analogy, having a recently promoted civil-servant for a father). I just wanted those few tools to be able to help out a bit more around here. Mel Etitis opposed me getting those tools because he disagreed with me on one particular issue and felt that anyone disagreeing with him on that particular issue couldn't be trusted. He had every right to do that, of course. As for the "slap in the face" factor: Not getting adminship was a trivial issue - being told I had chilling and revolting views and that I lacked ethical integrity was, and I wish I was made of sterner stuff, very distressing for me.

Nice chatting with you guys. I'll be checking in. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading the most recent comments I want to add a bit more in the way of response.

Maybe I should be more careful in using the term 'good faith'. To me it means something like 'sincerity' and evokes my muddled understanding of Sartre. Other people seem to mean something else with it - and, indeed, looking up the legal sense of the term I see that it's not precisely the same meaning I've been putting into it.

But, having read all of the above, I don't see anyone accusing Mel Etitis or those who agreed with him of bad faith. All they've been accused of is to fail to assume good faith, a different thing. Assuming good faith in the absense of compelling evidence to the contrary is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, our only set-in-stone rules. Mel Etitis et al. presumably consider themselves to be in possession of compelling evidence of Amalekite's bad faith - whereas David et al. do not. The question is one which reasonable, honest and good people disagree about.

To the issue of free speech. I personally didn't see the Amalekite affair as revolving around free speech. I saw it as an issue of fairness, non-discrimination and assuming good faith. I'll certainly accept that free speech has limits when it comes to calls for violence against people. The point was that many of us didn't see any such call. And I suspect that Michael and Mel Etitis are talking over each others' heads here. Michael is concerned about the free speech, as it were, of Wikipedians debating controversial issues. Mel Etitis, if I understand him correctly, is thinking about the limits of free speech when it comes to calls for violence. I doubt that the disagreement between them is fundamental once the context has been more clearly established.

And maybe we can discuss calls for violence a bit more. The following is intended as reductio ad absurdum - please don't read it as anything else. One fine morning a particular Wikipedian posted [1] a list of Wikipedians which he considered to have a revolting agenda, acting in bad faith and out to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. A common word for people acting like that is "troll". The same morning the same Wikipedian posted [2] a message to his friend where he encouraged her to "apply controlled bursts" of an Ak-74 rifle to deal with trolls. Was the first post a hit list? Was the second post an incitement to violence? Might a "drooling cretin" who hates trolls and reads these posts get ideas? ... Of course not, that's absolute balderdash.

Any incitement to violence included in Amalekite's posts to Stormfront was far less explicit than the example above. And yet, good people are of the opinion that they represent a grave danger. This is not unreasonable, given the context, but it seems to me that it puts a lot of credence in the power of the racist movement. Credence I don't feel is completely warranted, as I related above. We're giving them a lot of power over us if we fear posts like that.

Let me bring in another unrelated issue to compare with. Just before the Amalekite affair occurred a Wikipedian posted to the Wikien mailing list suggesting that people identifying themselves as paedophiles should be banned from contributing. I wrote back saying that I disagreed [3] This time I seemed to be in the majority and no-one was banned. And yet, I think that paedophilia is probably about two orders of magnitude greater a problem than nazi-ism in the world today. Why weren't people concerned about paedophiles putting young Wikipedians in danger? Why weren't people concerned about "drooling cretins" getting ideas? I think, and I appreciate that reasonable people disagree, that the answer may be that, for very understandable historical reasons, people have a tendency to exaggerate the danger, capability and importance of neo-nazis.

"Is it possible, Haukur", you may reply, "that it is in fact you who is underestimating the danger of neo-nazism because your ethnicity is not one of those which the nazis objected to?" Yes, that's possible. But it is, perhaps, also worth remembering how people with political opinions like mine were treated in the Third Reich.

Thanks for corresponding. It's nice to have a calm discussion about this. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)