David Appletree has been community banned before he got a chance to edit. The administrator who indeffed him, even before the ban, contributed this comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...002701&unhide=1

Don't see any content in the diff? That's because its been hidden out of sight. It was very short. Just Scott MacDonald commenting that he is not Jewish and 'please keep your knife away from my penis'. Apparently Avi didn't think the comment was quite as funny as that momzer Scott MacDonald did at the time he made made it. The apology to Appletree is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dav...e#Note_to_David

Since Appletree is blocked even from editing his own talk page, that will probably soon be hidden out of sight also. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcJR9y4bLHA...next=1&index=31

Not quite accurate.

The deleted revision was not mine, but Appletree forging a routine comment of mine to read as an anti-Semitic rant.

The irony here is this all started because I was accused of a pro-Jewish bias for defending Laura Schlessinger‎ against gross BLP libels. Someone said it was because I was a Jew. I made a thoughtless remark about not wanting to be circumcised, and now I'm attacked as an anti-Semite.

On wikipedia you can sure lose, but you can win.

You will need to expand on this before I can understand what you are talking about. What do you have to do with the indeff and comment by Scott MacDonald?

Ah, OK. 1) I am Scott MacDonald.


A little explanation: A few days ago, while I was '''defending''' a BLP subject who happens to be Jewish, an random user accused me of having a Conflict of interest because "Scott Mac is Jewish"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=381363808]. Not being Jewish, I was amused by this, and responded with a light-hearted remark about circumcision [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=381365916]. The remark was inappropriate. It appears that DavidAppletree commented (rightly) to that effect. However, the thread was long and his comment was late, and I didn't see it, and had no idea he'd been involved in that discussion at all. A few hours ago, as the result of an unconnected ANI discussion, I indef blocked Appletree. (He'd been attacking other editors off-site, as part of some "Jewish Internet Defence League" and was probably a reincarnation of a banned user anyway). Had I realised he'd commented on my inappropriate remark, I wouldn't have blocked him, because of the possible appearance of bias (but someone else would have blocked him anyway). Unfortunately, the fact he criticised my remark and then I blocked him, as given him licence to call my block anti-Semitic. The first time the remark was brought to my attention (by Avi) and apologised for it,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_MacDonald&oldid=382034628#Can_you_please_explain_this_edit.3F] and struck it.

Appletree has however forged a post of mine (the post that's now been deleted) to make it a gross anti-Semitic rant. The only things is that the rant is so over the top that the forgery is obvious. I have offered an apology to Appletree - but he's blocked so can't respond.

I assume that was a typing error for: "On wikipedia you can sure lose, but you cannot win"?

Ah, yes. Obviously. Winning would be impossible.

What I have said here previously is that, in my view, most people do not understand what antisemitism is. If I say to them that they are antisemitic they think I am accusing them of being a Nazi. There are is a wide spectrum of antisemitism, and in its common (garden variety) form it just means that the person has some antisemitic content in their inventory of ideas. I have friends who are clearly in that category.

The problem is in situations like this it influences decisions. You have some antisemitic content in your thinking, and your claim that it has not influenced your administrative actions. Of course you are not the only one. Many other administrators have have biases hidden away, but that influences actions. It is often clear enough to Jews, but saying 'antisemitism' (instead of bringing redress) results in blocks for making accusations that can not be proven with diffs. Its just that in your case you were careless and there is (or at least was) a diff. Hiding that diff is disgraceful.

I believe this screenshot shows the deleted content, forged by User:David Appletree.

The diff that has been hidden was D.A. changing what Scott wrote into something entirely different.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...:DavidAppletree

The forgery is still available (for now) for viewing on imageshack, which can be compared to the actual message which is still available in the history and present on the page.

No that is not it. Anyhow, even if Appletree had 'forged' a statement (but it might be he did just not know how to find a diff) where is the original comment on AN/I? It seems to be gone.

He did forge it. It would be better if the evidence was undeleted - it is very clear.

If any admin is reading this, I'd point out that hiding it tends to exonerate Appletree and incriminate me. Please restore it.

Click here

Do you see all the stricken lines? That is what has been hidden.

Do you see who penned the stricken content?

Do you still think some of Scott's comments have been hidden?



It's a double-edged sword. Let me know if you still want it unhidden and I'll take the necessary steps.

Ah yes, that's the proof. Good enough?

The title of this thread is probably as misleading as they ever come; we did know Appletree. Quite well.


(By the way: I suspect he had quite a few socks before Einsteindonut...Disclosure: I have a "history" with Einsteindonut on WP. )

And Jimbos response is, surprise, surprise: quite unimpressive.

You said there was discussion on AN/I, and that you did not know he was part of it. I can not find that conversation. I mean the conversation in which you made a comment that you actually apologized for. Could you give a link?

]Here is my comment

Appletree simply posted under it later asking if this was called for.

Jimbo's response was to ask me to apologise to Appletree. Actually, I'd already done that directly (not that the remarks were aimed at him, but I apologise to anyone who is offended).

With respect, I think Jimbo was not wrong, but perhaps missing the bigger picture.

I am not sure that is all that has been hidden. There was a discussion on AN/I where he said something that he actually did apologize for. I have not been able to find that discussion.

Sorry, not getting you. Nothing has been deleted from ANI, and I've posted the link above. I didn't have any "discussion" with Appletree on ANI. I made one remark (in another context) which he later commented on. That was all.

No. What I am looking for is I link to the discussion on AN/I where you said something that you did apologize for. Can you give a diff to that?



The name is not misleading because I think way too many users get blocked just for saying stuff that others do not want to hear. More on that soon.

He already linked it above.

Humor me and give the link again. Thanks.

Yes, posted for the third time in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=381365916

OK. Thanks.

That is exactly the statement of yours that I was talking about when I started the thread. So I did have it right. Sorry for the negative report, but the statement is antisemitic. I understand that you intended it as a joke, but that just makes it an antisemitic joke. That you actually indeffed Appletree after saying that is highly problematic.

Perhaps you might retract your erroneous statements about revision hiding then?

I disagree. I think you disparage victims of genuine anti-Semitism when you apply the label to things like that. If I'd been accused of being a Muslim and joked "no thanks, my wife would hate a Burkah", would that have been "islamophobia"?

Can't one joke about Judaism at all? Given how sensitive people are about this, it was foolish of me to joke about it, but how the hell is that "anti-Semitic". I didn't disparage Judaism in the slightest. If someone calls me a baptist and I make some remark about not wanting to get wet - is that anti-baptist?

My block was not problematic. What was problematic was that I was unaware that Appletree had commented on my statement. Had I seen his comment, I would not have blocked him myself, because it had the potential to look like payback for his criticism - which it was not.

Look, I'm happy to apologise for stupid remarks, but to call them anti-Semitic is, frankly, an insult to people who have to battle against real racist discrimination. Shame.

Well, my experience is that some men get, hm, very sensitive when it comes to hmmm, their private parts and knives!


Sorry, I could not resist.

(Greetings from yours truly, born totally without one. Male private parts, that is. )


Well, you might have the opinion that a guy who has been banned for socking should be allowed to continune to make exactly the same kind of edits under a new user name: That´s ok. (A suspect a few members here are doing more or less that! )

However, that is not the same as saying "we hardly knew ye" when an oldtimer return to wp. Which is what Appletree did/was.


Well, I think that is exactly the problem: when we have organized, and trained editors who come on WP to POV-edit; you might be damn sure they know all the rules. And they are oh-so-very polite. Always. While us "amateurs" loose our cool, or step over the line after being provoked.

And then Jimbo just cannot see the wood, or does not want to see it....for all the trees.

I was discussing "blue-collar" crime vs. "white-collar" crime the other day: Now "blue-collar" crime (being physically robbed, or mugged) is a nasty crime, no doubt.
But economically speaking; "white-collar" crime (from rotten bankers, estate-agents, or laywers) can easily rob you of a thousand times more that the "blue-collar" criminal. BUT: they generally get less punishment.

I guess so it is also on wp:
Somehow Jimbo seem only concerned with the "blue-collar" crime: stay oh-so-polite, be nice, and all the BS.
All while the content of the socalled "encyclopedia" is being systematically twisted.

1. Socks editing does not bother me as much as it may bother you. I edit with my IP all the time. So what? As long as socks are not used for multiple votes, I see no problem. Tag teams are a much more serious problem, but WP can not do anything about that.

2. Jimbo slapped down Peter Cohen (apparently our very own SelfHater). I think he did the right thing, but perhaps only because he was worried about the Foundation being held libel if what Cohen said goes to court. Cohen was on a vendetta against Appletree, and using every every forum he could find (including WR) for his soapbox.

There is a link given by Avi on Appletree's talk page which is now completely gone. It linked to exactly the statement I referred to when I started the thread. First the link changed, and then Avi's edit disappeared completely. It is not even in the edit history. To me it is very clear that there was an intention to hide stuff that is embarrassing to WP.

Some people on the Internet are too concerned about political correctness. Somehow, it's okay for a comedian to make a politically incorrect joke, but ordinary people can't.

Avi (Avraham (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) made exactly two consecutive edits to the page. The edits contained one difflink which is not hidden (do note that Avi erroneously linked Sinebot signing the diff he was apparently talking about).

I am an adversary of PC. But that joke is no more funny than trying to embarrass Blacks with joke about watermelons. Doing that is not funny, its bigoted. http://blogs.suntimes.com/mitchell/2009/02..._and_black.html

Ohhhh, I don't think so!

Make that an electric knife and hip and buttock padding, though, and you've got yourself a party!

The reason for the name of this thread is that Appletree got zapped without having a chance to edit. That was, I think, because there were many WP editors with a strong dislike for his point of view. I do not think that is grounds to ban an editor. We never had a chance to see how he would have edited, and therefore, 'Appletree we hardly knew ye. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcJR9y4bLHA...next=1&index=31

I well remember the first time I saw a community banning on AN/I. It was of Guido den Broeder, and I think it amounted to a wiki-lynching. I knew before then that WP had serious problems, but when I saw that many editors acting that viciously I was revolted. It was as though all the worst creeps, from all the worst high school cliques, were assembled in one place. Feh.

Hmmm.

Eh.

Phooey!

That doesn't quite have the same ring as "I am Keyser Soze" or "I am Spartacus" or "I am the Walrus" or "I am I, Don Quixote, the Man of La Mancha" or "I am only three-and-half-years old" or "I am puzzled as the oyster" (bet you can't guess who said that without looking it up on Google!).



Egad, not another Mac addict!




Oh, dirty jokes!

Indeed, the only winning move is not to play.

So why are you still playing?

You do not know me. The people who do know me know that is so.

But (to give a foundational Stoic concept) what you think is in your power, not mine, and is entirely your own responsibility. If you think I am concerned with the opinions of others, that must be because you have not seen my WP talk pages.

Ooooooooooooh, yes it was! You ain't fooling anyone, bub.



Now all we need is a Moulton song parody of the story, set to this classic tune of fruity arboreal splendor:

Actually, DavidAppletree (T-C-L-K-R-D) had a brief opportunity, between comments at AN/I, to show he could be a productive editor, but he made only four mainspace edits. He was too busy editing his User page, I guess.


As Woody Guthrie put it, some people rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen.

We really need a subforum for the P/I people.

Hey Malik, you fucking momzer, you have already prove to me that you are a lair, and I would not be inclined to trust anything you say.

We have one. It's called “Politics, Religion, & Sucks”.

Jon

There's a fundamental difference: Doc's joke referred to a fundamental part of Judaism as practiced. He was not stereotyping.

It reminds me of a man from Africa who visited the university I attended. He worked with tribes in some remote areas, and told a joke about how those particular people have skin so dark that he couldn't see them at night unless they smiled. He said it completely innocently, as he had spent the majority of his life in Africa at that point, but some people were offended, because of their prejudices, not his. He saw nothing wrong with having very dark skin, but those who did were offended that he mentioned that difference.

Personally, I think the antisemitism came from the editor who claimed that Doc being supposedly Jewish constituted a COI. Doc's joke was a bad idea, but doesn't involve anything racist/antisemitic. There's a big difference between commenting on actual differences between people, and stereotyping/demeaning them.

You may be good at recognizing antisemitism in various guises, but the problems you are having in following this thread are distracting. On top of that, I'm disturbed by you turning a blind eye to the bigotry being spouted by the anonymous kook you are defending.

I don't see this as an I/P issue. I see it as administrators and other users, acting in the interest of their own editing preferences. It is a particular instance, that just happens to be I/P, of what Cla68 discusses in the thread Essay on activism, Criticism welcomed. It is an example of advocates on one side of an issue zapping an advocate on the other side. A lot of effort goes into this sort of non-editorial activity.

Then there is also, what appears to me, hiding certain actions so that it becomes hard to find information.

There is no Ministry of Truth in operation here, and all hiding of revisions has been duly logged.

If you still think there is something untoward going on, contact the audit subcommittee.

LOL. The classic WP runaround.

LIOLI (Love It Or Leave It)

Jon

David Appletree was specifically mentored/advised to try to keep mainspace edits to a minimum while editors were discussing his case at ANI.