User talk:JoeM/ban

Discussion
User:JoeM continues to insert right-wing rants into Wikipedia pages. See his contributions to see what I'm talking about. RickK 23:54, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It would be fine if he was inserting and explaining the views of a group of people into articles without ranting. Vancouverguy 23:58, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I haven't actually participated in any of the pages he's vandalizing, but I have been reading his comments, and he whines like a liberal :) Maybe it's some kind of joke? Anyway, I support banning him until he reads and follows the Welcome Newcomers page like the rest of us. Adam Bishop 00:11, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/005787.html :

This sounds like an only 10% milder counterpart to the Palestinian activist from last week. Well, if he keeps it up, I approve that we should put him on auto-revert unless and until he gets the message.

(said Jimbo) --Evercat 00:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

He's a repeat offender. When he changed Islamofascism to POV rant some users spent a lot of time explicitly telling him what is wrong with his submissions but he won't (or perhaps can't) moderate even in the slightest. And he whines like a baby. Ban. M123 00:15, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * ...and ban now.Vancouverguy 00:46, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In favor of the ban. The attempt is being made to turn this page into a FOX News, 2000 election, liberal versus conservative flamewar (with some success) when the real topic is whether or not what he writes is a neutral encyclopedia article. I am biting my tongue as to my personal political opinions which is difficult.  It would be better if everyone did also and just stick to the issue at hand.Ark30inf 01:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Remainder of a removed political discussion
Political Discussion moved to the TalkPage of the user.

Kept:

Can we please keep the discussion relevant? It must be noted that JoeM would not be banned for his political opinions, but for repeated NPOV violations. Evercat 01:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FALSE!!! Can you people be banned for your NPOV violations? Right now, the conservative viewpoint isn't represented in the homelessness article. What about the view that the freer the market the less unemployment and homelessness? What about personal responsibility? We can have NPOV if you let me write the conservative view and you can write the liberal views. However, you insist on solely writing from the left and censoring the right. If you worked with me and cooperated, we'd have NPOV. However, you chose to censor me and impose your POV through banning users and protecting pages. JoeM

You can include the conservative viewpoint. But, firstly you should stop using loaded language. Secondly, if you are going to claim, for example, that Saddam Hussein is evil, then say something like that explains why some people feel that way about him, not in the intoduction, but, in a section that explains public opinion about him. PS: Don't use this as an excuse to go off topic and rant about Saddam.Vancouverguy 01:42, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've had enough for tonight. However, I'll be back soon writing some good content on the liberal media. Your liberal POV and censorship is safe for now that I go offline. JoeM

More discussion
Back to the topic at hand: JoeM is not even bothering to dispute that he is willfully and repeatedly ignoring NPOV. In fact, he seems to be taking great pride in admitting it loudly here, there, and everywhere. Ban him. Justin Bacon 02:07, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just a question: I have not seen all JoeM contributions to Wikipedia, so I don't know if someone tried to "play the game" of NPOV, that is, gradually changing the articles he created or changed in order to accomodate his opinions (which represent, arguably, a part of the general population opinions) in the article and at the same time preserving NPOV. Has this been done? Marco Neves


 * Yes, this was done with Islamofascism. An overly patient wikipedian incorporated some of the NPOV elements of his rant as a 'neoconservative' view point. BTW he doesn't edit articles, he replaces already existing articles with his own rant. M123 02:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it has, though I'm not sure.Vancouverguy 02:16, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Should we allow him to keep the articles he wrote (User:JoeM/on Al Gore and User:JoeM/on homelessness) and placed on his user page? If he writes more of those personal articles, and makes good edits to others, that's fine with me.Vancouverguy 02:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I would say that editing user pages is a big no-no. They aren't part of Wikipedia proper, so they don't have to be NPOV. He is claiming that he is being censored, so you should scupulously respect the distinction between main-namespace neutral articles and Talk:/User: free expression (even though Talk: is not for debate on the issue). Paullusmagnus 02:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are any number of Users who have odd things on their own User pages that we haven't touched, let JoeM keep his nonsense until he's banned.  RickK 02:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure my political bashing was that out of topic. I believe Wikipedia is a democratic process. Any opinion is welcome in Wikipedia as long as people tries to play the game of NPOV, that's why I'm not a great fan of banning users. The problem is not that JoeM is right-wing. The problem is that JoeM has a curious sense of democracy. He is for some kind of democracy bombing half of the world to explain them what is real democracy.... and for a Wikipedia were NPOV views are his "common sense" views. Ericd 02:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, when I go to a ban page, or any other official sort of page, I'd rather not see my political beliefs bashed just because someone is trolling with those same beliefs. That is likely to make me think its really about the politics rather than the integrity of the encyclopedia.  I prefer not to believe that.Ark30inf 03:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I didn't bashed is economics views for instance. I would never bash people because they are for free market or for some kind of socialist economy. I bashed him because there's is IMO a strong relationship between his democratic views and the way he behave in Wikipedia. Do you sezriously think we could do some good job with someone that think that all he his a real democrat and all contradictor are brainwashed without emphasizing his contradictions.
 * Ericd 03:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Its fair to point out his unwillingness to write in a voice that has a neutral point of view. Its fair to point out exact instances of that.  But its probably not fair to make fun of, or bash, the political opinions themselves on this particular page.  Now on user talk pages...bash away.Ark30inf 03:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Politically, I agree with you. But I guess even his curious sense of democracy may be accomodated in articles, don't you think? He has "behaved badly" in Islamofascism, but has he kept inserting articles and substituting articles with his "common sense opinions"? Has he changed his behaviour? I'm really asking, since I don't know. If he has changed his behaviour, I don't agree with banning him: everyone can learn to be NPOV, even JoeM. If he keeps promoting what can be seen as "wikiterrorism" I guess we can liberate this Wikiraq from JoeM Hussein. ;) Cheers to all, even to JoeM (an extremist with a strange sense of humour, nonetheless). Marco Neves

I hope he changes his behavior.Vancouverguy 02:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Has he offered?Ark30inf 03:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately, and he probably won't.Vancouverguy 03:05, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If we don't believe that man is good and can get better a project like Wikipedia is hopeless ;-) Ericd 02:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is Not
JoeM, you are (I assume) extremely used to defending your political views, and that is what you want to do. However, the point of this discussion is not to decide whether your views are true, but whether you will allow articles to fairly represent all major views on a topic. If not, it doesn't mean that you're wrong (or an evil person, or irrational) -- it just means that you should have these discussions somewhere that supports discussion (Kuro5hin? a web log? Usenet?), as opposed to condensation of already existing knowledge, which is Wikipedia's purpose. Marco Neves says that you have &quot;behaved badly&quot;, not because you are a bad person, but because you are defending only conservatism in a place where every viewpoint must be tollerated. Basically, if you don't like the fact that Flat Earth does not say &quot;Flat-Earthers are incorrect&quot;, even though the facts are all there to see that, you won't like Wikipedia until it becomes something different... and most of us like Wikipedia the way it is. If Wikipedia seems like a hostile environment, that's just because we Wikipedians want to keep making small, incremental changes to get toward neutrality, rather than arguing. Paullusmagnus 03:12, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I propose that people list here articles where JoeM has made a POV contribution, stating the reasons why that particular intervention can be made a basis for banning him. I hope this will prevent any confusion between politics and NPOV issues. I will start the list with Islamofascism, hoping that someone explains how he behaved in that particular page. Do you agree with this way of getting on with this page? Marco Neves

EricD wrote: "If we don't believe that man is good and can get better a project like Wikipedia is hopeless." Well spoken, Eric. Bans are last resort things, to be used only when all else fails. Joe's utter failure to understand the concept of NPOV and the purpose of an encyclopedia does not, at this early stage, constitute grounds for a banning, or for discussion of a ban. If he keeps it up, of course, with no sign of an honest effort to learn how to be a good wiki-citizen, then it will be time to reconsider. Tannin 04:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree it still is not a basis for banning, but the discussion, for me, is alright, since it can help JoeM improve his behaviour. This is one of the steps we must take before banning. Only if this step (and all others) fail, should we ban him. The above list is useful, since it can keep an eye on JoeM's POV wrongdoings. If they diminish or disapear, it means ban is no longer an option. Marco Neves


 * A fair comment, Marco. Tannin

Don't feed the trolls
By and large, the reactions to the trolling of this user have been completely misguided and ineffective. In fact, the attempts to deter him have been fueling him. He should be subject to auto-revert with absolutely no response. And this should not only be case with articles, but any page, including user talk pages and article talk pages. Eventually, it would be tantamount for him to turning a light switch on and off over and over again. He might find this amusing for half and hour or so, but eventually he'd get discouraged and find another site where he actually has a forum. So far, auto-revert has repelled the trolling of every user who has been subjected to it except Michel. With his scatological sense of humor and behavior typical of a small child, Michael is in a league of his own. This user, however, appears to be interested in discussing politics and has inappropriately turned Wikipedia into such a forum for him. He is probably sophisticated enough, unlike Michael, to leave once he is subjected to auto-revert.

Instead, he has been allowed to engage in protracted political discussions with many users. From his standpoint, he is being entertained and he has a forum. As someone with a high threshold for tolerating bizarre views, I can understand why it would be equally entertaining to converse with someone whose views are so absurd, ultra-nationalistic, and provincial. I suggest that the users who have been responding to his rants in articles, article talk pages, and user talk pages find his e-mail address and discuss politics with him in another forum. Right now, allowing him to discuss foreign policy, mainstream American media, and American social problems is keeping him here.


 * I'm guilty as charged, sorry. Now, I have only been involved with this for less than 24 hours, and only marginally. Since none of my content is in danger of being vandalized, my opinion should count for little, but I think we should avoid banning or auto-reverting because this would just reinforce JoeM's paranoia about being censored. -- Miguel

If he is capable of becoming a valued contributor, he can e-mail the mailing list pleading for another chance and promising not to engage in political advocacy. If not, a policy of auto-revert will drive him away. 172 04:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I was taking a look at the links above and I found example of the typical wrong response: "Why don't you just shut the fuck up, gun toting imperialist yankee. GayCom." A troll wants to pick a fight and provoke people. It would have been better to revert his comments and cast a vote in favor of banning. 172 04:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Taking into account what you say here, 172, I propose that all users abstain from answering him and (manually) change any case of POV, but still not use auto-revert or ban. What do you (all) think? | Another thing: Can anyone give some examples of banned users and the reasons why they were banned? It would be useful to compare situations. Marco Neves PS: I still think the list is useful and that it is a legitimate way of keep an eye on him.

I suppose it is a good idea to simply not engage with him, and revert all his edits.Vancouverguy 04:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The last thing anyone should be doing is engaging in political debate with him. I might be being harder on him because I share some of his political leanings, but I am disinclined to give him forever to 'understand' what an encyclopedia is.Ark30inf 04:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree 100%.Vancouverguy 04:58, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So, I guess we can agree in a non-official user ban on answering JoeM. Apart from that, we will revert any POV contribution he does. Only after some time and only if he doen't change his behaviour will we reconsider his ban. Right? I advise everybody to "spread news" about this, telling any user who engages in political debate to read this page. Furthermore, the above list is still useful for monitoring all this mess. Agreed? Cheers to all! :) Marco Neves

Sounds like a solid plan. Do we want to extend this to Talk pages, as well? I'm of a mixed mind on this one. On the one hand, if he's allowed to side-line legitimate discussions, then he's clearly doing harm. And if he's simply using the Talk pages to keep up a steady scream-and-bait routine, then the problem hasn't gone away. On the flip-side, it's a bit harder to fall back on NPOV for Talk pages. And I don't think we want to stonewall him entirely, yet. Thoughts? Justin Bacon 06:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

IMO opinion we have enough elements to conclude that JoeM doesn't care or doesn't know what is NPOV. this should be sufficient to allow any user to revert his edits without writing 8 pages of "Why I reverted...". (Except of course if there is some serious improvement.). Should we talk with him or no IMO let's everyone free to do so if they want. Ericd 07:07, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bans are not terribly effective. Auto-revert without comment: yes. I posted a plea for paitence and moderation above, but the bad behaviour continues. The time has come for an auto-revert policy. Tannin 23:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tannin. His behavior is more than trollish enough for me: now he's threatening to vandalize people's pages, etc.  Since it seems like at least 90% of his contributions warrant reversion (and the remaining 10% are not constructive additions to Wikipedia, but merely complaints about other users "vandalizing" pages), auto-reversion seems reasonable to me.  JoeM's conduct in the last few hours does not seem to me to be the conduct of a user who will come to see the errors of their ways.  Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please, let's ban him. He's done nothing but vandalize articles and spew vitriol on talk pages. -- Jake 01:38, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)

LIST of instances where JoeM has inserted obvious POV in articles

 * Islamofascism -- (see ) it starts with "Evil exists. And militant Islamism ...  is the enemy of freedom and the distilled essence of evil" and then later "amoral liberal left is opposing our commander in chief George W Bush in his struggle in Iraq" it is obvious POV full of loaded words and some incorrect information (such as Saddam an islamist). When told to stop he created Islamo-fascim, THIS IS BEING CENSORED BY LIBERAL POV, and pasting his opinion; he also erased World War IV and replaced the article with another one stating only his POV.
 * User Talk:GayCommunist -- Outright insult. (Not clear if is that is anti gay or anti-communist ? - Ericd 04:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC))
 * Saddam Hussein -- (see ) where he then "corrected" the intro to this article by replacing the paragraph with POV such as Saddam is "an evil tyrant. He has murdered millions...has ties to Al Qaida, was probably involved in 9/11".
 * People's Republic of China -- inserted "...is an inhuman state of terror and perhaps one of the most vicious tyrannies ever imposed on human kind..."
 * Communist Party of China -- inserted "...the most diabolical organization that has ever existed. It has more blood on its hands than any regime in human history:Tens of millions slaughtered in the terrorist campaign ..." "most diabolical organization in history" is hyperbole.  while IMO, it is true that the CPC is 'evil', my opinion has no place in an encyclopedia article and neither does JoeM's, the reader will have to make that determination from facts presented in the article.  Also used the term "tens of millions" several times to describe the number of deaths, starvation, etc. which are not really accurate estimates.  Used term 'unspeakable poverty' which would only be appropriate phraseology in an HP Lovecraft novel
 * Homelessness -- inserted a new article with his obvious POV expressed throughout without stating it was a POV of a particular group (far right conservatives?)?)---disparages other points of view rather than just adding contradictory evidence and conclusions.Ark30inf 04:21, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Examples: The liberals, humiliated because of the economic recovery that Ronald Reagan brought about, decided to harp on this sham issue to distract attention from the Reagan prosperity. - obvious political opinion stated as matter of fact.
 * Al Gore -- Inserted a "Personal Profile" stating his opinions about Al Gore, bordering insult in some sentences. Never mentioned his opinions as being examples of some group opinions such as "elitist, bureaucratic, statist, anti-American, and anti-capitalist at its core (just like Soviet Communism)" and "trying to seize control of America and make it a bureaucratically-administered despotism like the Soviet Evil Empire, which America brought down".
 * Vandalizes other people's pages.
 * Engaged in an edit war on Islam,Osama bin Laden,Al Qaeda putting an overly large photo of the WTC collapsing in the middle of each page and replacing them over and over again wasting at least three peoples time having to follow behind him.
 * Repeatly uploaded copyright "French Knife" image and placed on his User page & Talk page, multiple times.

Put on auto-revert
Our benevolent dictator approved putting JoeM on auto-revert if he kept it up. Evidence suggests that he has kept it up. Therefore, I've added an appropriate ban notice to the user page. If anyone disagrees with this, they're welcome to revert me... :) Martin 09:59, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Finally!Vancouverguy 18:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Jimbo's edited the user page, which probably overrides his earlier comment. Who knows? Martin 08:42, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)