Requests for comment/Swedish Fork

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.


I want to, after 19 years as contributor, report to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and users everywhere, that the Swedish Wikipedia in my eyes, is becoming a fork of Wikipedia, which is not anymore following the original idea, with NPOV, the five pillars, rather does admins on en:Swedish Wikipedia in my POV, violate the entire idea how a Wikipedia should work, and violating how NPOV should be interpreted and followed, which have, among other definitions, seen described as follows:

"There will be no single organization in charge of what to include in the encyclopedia or the learning resource, no one that can be lobbied to exclude "creation science" or holocaust denial (or, by the same token, lobbied to exclude evolution or the history of Nazi death camps). Where there is controversy, multiple views will be represented. So it will be useful for readers to be able to see who endorses or has reviewed a given article's version of the subject. "

Intro[edit]

In 2014, Swedish Wikipedia was the second largest Wikipedia in the world, containing more than 1,8 million articles. How is this huge project administrated? Is is possible that this entire lang branch may be monitored by less than 20 people, who while violating the five pillars, and NPOV, by simply deciding together, most probably on alternative platform, where people have less insight, how the project is governed?

Even outside the en:Swedish Wikipedia their admins is against an open discussion about what is going on, and accusing Swedish users of en:POV if they are critical, as can be seen on en:Talk:Swedish Wikipedia.

We ALL, contributors to all Wikipedias have a responsibility, that what we once participated in, being a gift to future generations, is kept free. Free som from political manipulation, free from admin abuse, free from small groups who want to define, what is right and what is wrong. In the end, is about this very very vulnerable topic, which we all refer to as the truth. And the truth is obviously not one, and can not be defined by one person, or by 20 persons, on this globe, or by a political,party, it can only be defined, by freedom of speech, freedom to write, and freedom to express you opinions. And even then, we should not tell anyone, what the truth is, but let themselves decide, what they believe is the truth. This said, we can never define the truth for someone else. BUT, we can honestly give it a try. AND, we can give the possibility, for everyone on earth, to try to define truth. As long as no dictator tell us what the truth is, and what we should believe, we are all free to define the truth. Our responsibility is to keep Wikipedia free, in all possible sense of the word, FREE.

The case[edit]

Im sad to claim, that en:Swedish Wikipedia has after I first time I reported this as tendency (Swedish), already in 2004, gradually during the last years, being hijacked by a small group pf powerful users, forked away from the above described definition, and today consist of a group of people with admin rights, who doesn't apply the common Wikipedia policies, and with claimed "consensus" (normally consisting of the same 5-20 individuals) avoid the common values of NPOV, by claiming they have consensus in different issues, referring to their private opinions on claimed "main stream" and are violently destroying users attempts to bring articles to better NPOV, either by threats, or by simply blocking users, with different kind of official reasons, while the true reasons, are not verbalized, or addressed. Attempts of asking the admins to investigate into this, has been aggressively cracked down, by simply closing the page and blocking the person who asked for investigation, later claiming that the request did not have "enough support", followed by threats and authoritative behaviour, similar as to how medieval priests were trying to desperately maintain power over people, when they were questioned and criticized. To my knowledge not any Independent user from outside, with exception of former steward @Rschen7754:, anyone bothered to look into whats going on, or shown any interest to my previous report Requests_for_comment/Do_something_about_svwiki, why I need to highlight the issue even more.

The reason, why I refer the Swedish Wiki as a fork, is simply based on the fact, that NPOV is not in priority, in the way described in the general policy, e.g. 6 persons on Swedish Wikipedia can create a consensus, based on political views or not, and override users attempts to make an article NPOV, claiming they have a consensus of NPOV, numerous examples of this show, that when those small "consensus-groups" create their "consensus" they just need their opinions to create it, and anyone with verified sources speaking against their consensus, is not allowed to edit articles according to true and real NPOV. With this way of forking, an article on svwiki can describe something quite different, than the article in English does. In most cases, this is not a big issue, tomatoes, apples and parrots are described pretty identical, but when it comes to controversial issues, the aspects can be extreme in difference, and basically, a user who want to edit an article, like how it is described in the English version, can be threatened, harassed, forbidden to edit, and blocked, if not following the dictatorship of the small but powerful group, therefore forking the project in a direction, it was never meant to do, when created. It has to my knowledge never been discussed what to do if a language section doesn't follow the Wikipedia Policy, including HOW NPOV should be reinforced, I can only relate to before Wikispecies was established, the fears of species becoming a fork was discussed, on a serious level, and WS was created along with certain gurratees such as Wikispecies will need to have strict anti-forking policies and it was added that: When the Board authorized the project, they believed that since objections such as the possibility of a fork were addressed, there were no outstanding concerns and that consensus had been reached. The Board believed that through the conditions laid down in the Wikispecies charter, a mutually acceptable solution had been found and made the decision to allow the project in good faith.

The present worse problems of forking consist of:

  • Applying en:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules when violating Wikipedia rules and policies, by blocking long term users, because of their opinions. (te exemption says: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. but its nowhere else recommended to use as harassment and as a tool of control, of long term users, in conflicts of opinions)
  • Not following the Founding principles, including:
  1. Not applying en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) in the fork, as a guiding editorial principle, but creating "consensus" of what is by a smaller group, in their personal opinion, being NPOV, and refusing other opinions to be described in articles, thereby making the article POV, regardless of 7 persons who created a "consensus"
  2. NOT The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration, by simply removing text, which a smilar small group, by claimed "consensus" does not approve to to be included in the fork.
  3. NOT letting The "wiki process" as the final decision-making mechanism for all content, but letting the leaders of the fork, have the last word, regarding to content in articles. Even if verifying sources say otherwise, they can simply be removed from a page, by the wish of an admin, following their private opinion, or simply declaring that the second POV is en:Wikipedia:Undue weight , or whatever they claim as official reason to violate NPOV, although reference speak another, very clear language.
  4. Not applying The creation of a welcoming and collegian editorial environment, but only for people, who share similar ideas about HOW things should be described in articles. And if long term users claim alternative views, become harassed, and/or blocked by the the Highjackers.
  5. NOT Maintaining room for fiat to help resolve particularly difficult problems. On a dozen projects, an Arbitration Committee has the authority to make certain binding, final decisions such as banning an editor.
  • APOV admin point of view
  • Admins can not be desysoped, if they abuse their admin tools, only option is vote against them by next elections, years later
  • Requests for investigation of admin abuse, are not performed, except for letting a number of people discuss, after which case is closed.
  • Threatening and blocking of users with "wrong opinions" mostly motivated with other official reasons, like disturbing annoying behaviour, non-cooperative etc, but with less impressing documentation about how the NPOV issues has been addressed.
  • NOT having an en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, with the motivation it became a voting place, which interestingly has later been replaced by votes by users, who claim "consensus" but have no official responsibly to upheld any kind of Arbitration, and in some cases, or rather often, in really is acting like when a small group of people, by consensus, hanged a claimed horse thief in the closest tree.
  • Not letting users with different opinions and ideas than the Highjackers, be involved in the governing of the fork.
  • NO Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

I personally as sv.Wikipedias first admin ever, created community features such as the Village pump, maintenance functions like sabotage deterrence, pioneered much of its fundamental corpus of articles, and called to the first Tinget. This wiki "thing" of 24 November 2002 became the first instance akin to an arbitration committee on any Wikipedia language version, effectively making Swedish Wikipedia the first decentralised franchise while the rest of Wikipedia was still under Jim Wales' direct personal supervision. And Im very sad to see where this is going today. After correspondence between me, stewards, and @Jimbo Wales: in April-May 2005, after [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard a voting in the Thing], the Things was replaced by Arbitration Committee, which some years alter, was replaced by nothing except a tight group of users, who now control the svwiki, and if you do not belong to what they refer to as "we" making you understand being some sort of outcast, there no chance to insist of NPOV, since they describe in each every case, what NPOV they decide is the "right one". I have no doubt that they truly believe they are doing the right thing, as many dictators also did in the history, being corrupted by power, and forgetting how it is some who has no powers. Whatever was the intentions of creating admin rights, we all know that never was the intention to control other people, and control the content of the encyclopedia, but rater to defend it against attempts of political hijacking. And here is a problem, because "Peter" can accuse "Anne", for what "Annie" accuses "Peter". So only when respecting NPOV, and letting both sides be described, can any kind of "truth" be reached, if both are willing to compromise, and with good faith let all views be presented. But true NPOV doesn't seem to have one defender on svwiki, which is serious. Instead, "consensus" is used, mostly with less than ten people involved, and when a decision is suddenly delivered in the discussion, what is "right" and what is wrong", and which "angle" the article should have. =POV, under false claim of being NPOV. All attempts to adress this by anyone, is then addressed as POV, and "against consensus".

Regarding relevant correspondence, which in total can be read here, here is one of the most important parts:

A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though.  NPOV for
example.

> And when guidelines are already established on en,
> because of your experience, it is probably important
> that the other versions learn from you, but perhaps
> make their own rules, according to local situation.

I agree completely. --Jimbo

A waste number of examples can uneasily be described, in later specified content, but a clear example is when one admin, after his removal of my correct citations of the expert I had included in an article, he changed the definition of the professor in the article, from previously described climate scientist, so his removal of my verified content would not look as suspicious. The professor, however, who started to give television interviews regarding climate over 40 years ago, is still labelled as climate expert in Wikidata, so the admin created a biased conflict between svwiki and WD. Theres a number of occasions when during 40 years geve his opinion, but one admin can forbid other users from citing the professor, because of the admins opinion that the professors opinion is not relevant. Whatever sourced NPOV material I find, Im forbidden to submit them into the article, by this admin, and after last time I did, I was again, blocked for 2 weeks.

Unfortunately, a number of persons trying to question whats going on, has been silenced, and/or has stopped contributing, and as it seems, being Swedish Wikipedias longest serving user, I feel a responsibility, to finally bring whats going on to the Wikimedias attention, and once again request an investigation. In that sense, it has to be reminded, that how the Swedish Wikipedia is sometimes described in Sweden, also affects the Swedish public view of the global Wikipedia as a general tool of knowledge and spreading of information. Im sure, there will be attempts of trying me being seen as a sole, bitter and destructive person, in order to secure that no one bother to look more deep into if the forking should be stopped.

@Boeing720: described 20 October 2017 the situation already as follows:[1]

"No full democracy is not applicable at any encyclopedic work. Nevertheless is (I doubt I can use "was") Swedish Wikipedia more or less ruled by a smaller minority. Mainly living in the greater Stockholm area. There is NO WP:Conflict resolution, WP:Outing, WP:Harassment or anything like AN/I. Instead are not so few of its administrators lording as it pleases them. I really would like someone from North America, Britain, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand or any other part of the World and who is native in English, and who has no earlier Swedish contacts, to look deeper into for instance why Dan Koehl was blocked for A WHOLE YEAR. Including full translation of all required stuff." Boeing720 21:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)}

I realize, this may be a convenient way, blaming me as a violent enemy, although my contributions during the years, doesn't real fit into that picture, why I strongly advice, not to see this report as a sole personal problem, believe me, its a problem for entire Wikimedia, when one language section forks out like this, and I believe, that within a certain flexibility, giving local chapters a certain freedom of personalizing their Wikipedia, its still important that each and every Wikipedia follows rules and recommendations, follow the five pillars, and having friendly and open administrative team, who politely and naturally, allow anyone to analyze, criticize, and question, how their local chapters are administrated. Otherwise, a language section can very easily fork, and become a POV and admin-POV governed, politically biased platform, sharing a minorities propaganda, labelled as a universal truth, delivered by Wikipedia, which has lately largely been able to improve the previous public scepticism, towards its possibility to present a neutral and reliable source of knowledge and information.

I also realize, this may in some parts be a problem on all Wikipedias, but is has to be highlighted, that:

  • The best guarantee, to upheld, and hopefully create an even better, neutrality, is to keep an open door for critics
  • If any group of 5-20 admins on a certain Wikipedia assures, that "We have no problem, its only this guy who is stupid and arrogant" (and that guy, and that guy, and that guy, "all of them very stupid") who is trying to destroy our work, then you can for sure have a reason to get suspicious, since its simply not the truth, when there are problem everywhere, and everyday.
  • IF a group of admins on a Wikipedia claim, we are all united, and we have no problem its just some extreme persons who challenge us, this may very well be indication of forking, since its much more healthy if such a project represent a large diversity of political, views, opinions, and ideas, in order to secure neutrality. And its always more honest to admit theres problems, and openly declaring HOW those problems can be solved, and what steps has been taken, to avoid them. Its more honest to say Im trying to learn from my mistakes, than claiming, I never made a mistake
  • Keeping such a large project free from attempts of Hijacking, is in fact a daily challenge, being fought by people, who are willing to risk anything, in order to secure that every and each Wikipedia, is in reality, based on the original principles, which is the written and declared foundation, that the public has to rely to, and base their choice upon, when considering supporting the project, with time and work, and/or with money.
  • if a limited group of admins, tell you, Theres nothing wrong, instead of saying we have a plan to develop this better, then for sure, you may know, they dont want you to investigate, and Check if something is wrong.
  • Nothing, not even the smallest risk, that Wikipedias policy may be violated on any project, should be neglected an investigation, if Theres even the slightest chance, that this may presently be the case.
  • Similar problem may occur on other projects, but most of them having by far, much more active users, speaking the language. The svWiki, being one of the larger Wikipedias, is an exception, in the character of having a huge content, with a very limited group speaking the language, and even more limited numbers of admins, and leading users, and in comparison with other wikis, an extreme false, and abusing way of defining consensus, by voting, instead of searching a compromise. How convenient this may seem, its a threat against the entire idea with Wikipedia.

"Consensus" has its strengths, but also its weakness, if its in hands of people in power, who tell others what to think, and if in the end, a leading group define by voting 5 people against one, that consensus is reached. With this rather primitive application, the term consensus is simply abused. Even if 1 million users claim cats are beautiful, and rats are ugly, we have no right to claim that rats are ugly, we can only describe that a majority may have this opinion, (I have no opinion in this matter) and if a number of sources state that many people actually think rats are sweat, we should not remove those verified opinions, in order to tell a reader which opinion they should have about rats.

One of the admins, User:Yger, told me, after simply deleting my verified submitted content, was that its against the angle and the consensus WE want to present, another admin has clearly described what is going on, when he asks me why have I not succeeded to convince you about what is main stream, thereby clarifying what is Swedish Wikipedias present ambition, to CONVINCE its readers and users, instead of delivering different ideas, so readers can make up their own idea about a subject. I asked the same admin 20th of May this year 2020;

  1. . What is your opinion about the Wikipedia Policy?
  2. . Do you think everyone should follow the policy?
  3. . Do you think that especially admins should follow the policy?
  4. . Do you think that ALL admins have a responsibility to see to defend the policy, and see to is followed in a neutral way, where articles reflect different point of views, and describe them according to the policy?
  5. . Do you think ALL articles should be NPOV und subordinated to whatever "consensus" a small number of persons with same political opinion may define as "the Wikipedias consensus"?

Until today, my questions from 20th of May, has not been answered from the admin, or any other admin on the Swedish Wikipedia, which ay make you understand, that regardless what they claim is how they work, something is terribly wrong...?

But this admin some hours ago before my latest block, triumphantly informed me that I should notice, that no one outside the sv wiki cares, indicating for me that they think they have freedom to govern svwiki to their wish, and no one from outside will ever bother.

Im now blocked again, for the third, or fourth time this year, which may cast a shadow on me, for anyone who doesnt care to in detail investigate how, and why I was blocked, during discussions, where an opponent used this way, of keeping certain articles to their wish. Im sorry, but what I have done, can clearly be seen in logs and diffs, where I have always supported the NPOV and the idea behind the five pillars, and not letting me be forced by a minorities idea, what readers on svwiki, should be aloud to read. The group also effectively prevented me from being reelected as admin on Wikidata, in a most strange way, not giving one example as to how I should have misjudged rules on Wikidata. This gives an indication of the aggressive hounding behaviour, of this group. I have been suggested to bring their behaviour to judgement, but partly cause I have no wish to attack other users, or hound them, and partly since I know such an act is useless, I have refused.

But I have asked to setup any kind of Committee to improve things, but this would of course be a threat against the present group in power, and it was never realized. My long experience could have been a constructive contribution, instead is all I hear is critic that my behaviour is bad, while anyone, can call me almost anything on sv wiki, including accusing me and my profession for animal cruelty, without anyone lifting a finger. Never was my opponents comments and words analyzed, or how I had calmly been trying to reply during hours, sometimes days of harassment's, and then in the end, when my sourced verified content could not be neglected, I was finally blocked, in ways that have large resemblance to medieval "courts" or how lynch-mobs judged people, where they had no chance to defend themselves. Mostly the most intensive discussions and decisions, where taken after I was blocked, with zero chance to defend myself.

Then again, Wiki is largely defined by people who find it valuable enough to live with its imperfections. (en:Clifford Adams)

With those words, I do hope that, after 19 years, I havnt misunderstood what Wikipedia is, or should be, and how its working environment should be secured as described above, and its my hope, that someone looks into this, other vise Houston, we have a problem. And the people who created the problem, and want the problem to remain, are very unlikely the people who may solve the problem? In any case, if the problems can not be solved, I suggest reducing the powers of those who has abused their powers, and let several stewards act as independent watchers over a period of at least three years, while someone is setting up a committee, in order to repair the damage. Better brains than mine, may have alternative solutions. But something needs to be done. Even, if the svwiki by all means will function tomorrow, and attract new users, although, we have seen a sad and not very promising tendency on sv wiki during the last years, of decreasing number of contributors.

I may be a yerk, a troll, a brutal animal trainer, (such accusations against me can be seen on sv.wikipedia, and not one of the accusers was blocked) a dissident, an Infidel, bit it doesn't matter what I am, what does matter, is that all Wikipedias should be governed according to the general Policy, and represent NPOV. Any indication of violation against this MUST be investigated, and admins be removed, if they are not working like they should.

If you dont start to investigate, I guess Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, is slowly loosing control of the project, while contributing people believe that you guarantee a certain validity by the written policy.

We must never give up, the struggle to improve and keep Wikipedia free and neutral, how difficult it may seem to be, and regardless, if any admin group on their mang section, promise theres no problem, because especially then, the risk is high, that a problem exists. Only those who are willing to identify problems, and find solutions, can support a positive development. And even if its only me, who claim there is a problem on the svwiki, I still hope, that at least one person, start to look into this. In the past of human history, it was not seldom, that a few who were willing, could save the freedom for many, who remained silent.

And regardless, Wikipedia should not have forks, only language varieties. Some Independent people, must see to this remain so. OR, let the present svwiki become a true fork, and create a real svwiki, with users and admins who are willing to to sign, that they wish to follow the policy.

Conclusion. IF a project like svwiki is removing formal en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard consisting of members who must stand up with some sort of responsibility, and the forked wiki, does not respect the Wikipedia Policy, or let 15 people interpret how it should be understood, in a way that is convenient for them, the word consensus becomes merely a word a label, for admin point of view, or worse, a dictatorship over all users, how controversial issues SHOULD be described. As a theoretical experiment, IF the Swedish communist party would pay 50 people to work on Wikipedia, seeing to, that it is in some limited number of issues, following a communist political view, the language section has no inbuilt protection against this, and can be hijacked. In this very moment, the logotype on the left, telling a visiting reader, that its a free encyclopedia, is no more valid, since it may as well, in some parts, be a tool of propaganda. Apart from the obvious negative impact, such a fork may have for other language Wikipedias, it does not seldom lead to human frustration and suffering, for contributors, who feel mislead by false information, about how the project is administrated. As we know from history, someone pointing out when a society is acting wrong, can be target for en enormous hate, where humans show their lowest possible acts, while at the same time protecting each other, and convincing each others, that what they do, is right.

In the case of Swedish Wikipedia, already one person seem to have committed suicide, and this seems to have been effectively silenced, and never investigated, while in other cases, users in the end, choose to obey and follow the leaders, or leave the project. In all those cases, the project itself loose in quality, reliability, and the possibility to one day become a good encyclopedia.

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Please also note, that I can not request of removal of admins rights for an admin on svwiki, or motivate it, since the written rules to ask for admins rights removals on Steward requests/Permissions, is expressed as follows: To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted user from that wiki should provide a link here to the discussion, a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion. -And if a Wikipedia is forking, and a group of admins have taken command of that wiki, no one can be expected, to gain such a consensus, against the will of that wikis admins. This is a catch 22 case. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Mixed discussions[edit]

If 20 people with admin right actually believe, that they are fit to define what the truth is, what main stream is, and which angle articles should have, for an entire nation of a language section,, instead of applying NPOV and normal Wikipedia Policy, it may be a good idea, to remove their rights, and bring that Wikipedia back on track, with modern philosophy as how to establish a good working environment, based on the five pillars, and TRUE NPOV?

Please also notice, that this issue described here, is not mentioned on sv Village pump with one word, and that the previous discussions on sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia (Swedish equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) has been discontinued, with orders that no one should discuss this further, and if anyone does, they may be accused of being a TROLL. By all means, most probably the team of more important admins on svwiki discuss this, but on a platform we cant see, follow, or take part in. Their present discussions are hidden and not transparent.

The present issue discussed here, is presently not discussed with one single word on svwiki. Its totally silent, after users were ordered to remain silent...

info: I have informed on KAW about this. It is mentioned and there you Can go by links here. Why then discuss it on Bybrunnen? Keep the discussions to one place. That it is not discussed there is probably because everyone is tired of the conflicts with DK and just wants calm. Adville (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
But Adville, the comment from one of svwikies burocates, Ternarius may leave an alternative to what you claim, which can be interpreted as an order to not to discuss it open?: (translation with Google)
Although his latest arguments are free from more personal attacks, I have a hard time believing that outside readers find them particularly impressive, and then it's just as well to leave them uncommented. I can also state that no one from meta has commented on Dan's accusations in this case in any of the three meta - discussions.
I personally think this well illustrates how users on svwiki are controlled and commanded how they speak and discuss, and I also think that readers of this page would like to see any kind of explanation from sv admins, why the normal five pillar and NPOV, is not applied on svwiki. After several days, you didn't take one step to explain this, all you did was attacking my person, as far as I can see. If an entire language section on Wikipedia is claimed to become a fork, it would be natural if you can argue and describe how it is not, instead of trying to paint my person in black, claiming five persons opinion "Swedish consensus", is some sort of evidence for me being a very bad person? I have sometimes been told, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This may be correct, but I like to add, Wikimedia should also NOT be governed by any kind of dictatorship. Every Wikipedia should follow the declared Policy and NPOV, otherwise its a fork? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Ternarius, I think you where supposed to be pinged in the above comment. Adville (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Dan, you forget that it is ’’one’’ not sattisfied blocked user writing here, not half of the svwp. This means that it Could be so that noone on svwp comes and proceed the discussion from svwp, that you (almost) alone have had for several years, because they do not think it is true and do not want to say that again for the ”femtioelfte gången” (Swedish expression). Adville (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you, with your words User:Adville, representing all users on svwiki, when you tell the whole world what other people on svwiki think? Are you in some way in possession of a document, that you are representing everyone else on sviwiki, and what you state above, goes for the entire svwiki community? Is this really true?
And yes, everyone can read your last words on KAW, where you are already discussing my NEXT future blocking, and how long it should be, after this present blocking is over, and with Google translation you claim:
-I would like to take this opportunity to state my opinion in the continuation of the case: Upon return in 2 weeks, If the onslaught from DK continues, we will give a very long block immediately. The climate on svwp gets so bad from all these outbursts in person and not discussion on the subject.
This starts to get very confusing for me User:Adville, since I, on this page where I describe how svwiki is forking from the rest of Wikipedia,, which is describing a subject, I have only read comments from you on this page, discussing my person, but not with one sentence, discussing the subject of the page? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha. You are trying to joke now? Right? This was not seriuos written? You know I am one person, just like you... and what I Can see on these pages it is just one person trying to convince the rest of the world that everyone on svwp are unhappy and feels oppressed. I clarified that This is not true, and that everyone are free to write here.
And yes. I have been one of those who did not want to permanent ban you. I was on your side. After Seeing your way of writing And accusing me for things that are untrue you made me change my mind. I am only human. Adville (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
yes, you may believe you are only human Adville, but you have powers I dont have, You can manipulate articles on the svwiki, and forbid me to edit articles there, on your wish. And you are not blocked from the svwiki, when you have been violating NPOV and Wikipedia Policy, while I am blocked, when I was trying to defend them. So, like in the book Animal farm, (citations from Animal farm) we are equal, and humans, but some of us, seem to be more equal... (end of citations from Animal farm) Im not describing how happy, or unhappy people are, Adville, Im describing a Wikipedia fork, where normal NPOV rules and Wikipedia Policy are not more applied, which is a very serious thing, and not a joke. Im sorry, but I can not understand the use of words joke and Hahaha, in combination with the risk that already one Swedish person may have committed suicide, while under a severe press from the en:Swedish Wikipedia admins. I repeat, this is not a joke, and please, speak for yourself, dont try to make my words look like a joke. A Wikipedia forking, without permission from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is a very, very, serious thing. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What you wrote about me above was so ”out in the blue” that it looken as a joke. I thought it was strange you joke like that, But what do I know. Sorry I missunderstood you, But maybe you should not try to see trolls in every letter someone from Sweden writes. Then it is easier to take what you write seriuos. Adville (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to you, Adville, I dont put words in your mouth, or laugh about, what I personally create as a fake version of your opinion, trying to make other people believe Im better to define your opinions than yourself. So, please dont bring the culture from svwiki here, where you tell other people about what I think, OK? I also want to point out to you, that the questions I gave you, 20th of May this year 2020 ha still not been answered. MAYBE instead of joking and trying to inform other people about what I think, you would be kind and PLEASE answer those questions, which YOU an ANY OTHER admin, or burocrat, on the en:Swedish Wikipedia, has answered yet, since 20th of May this year 2020. I do understand that you have a problem to answer those questions. I hope every admin, on any other project than Swedish Wikipedia, are more than happy to answer identical questions; Dan Koehl (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. . What is your opinion about the Wikipedia Policy?
  2. . Do you think everyone should follow the policy?
  3. . Do you think that especially admins should follow the policy?
  4. . Do you think that ALL admins have a responsibility to see to defend the policy, and see to is followed in a neutral way, where articles reflect different point of views, and describe them according to the policy?
  5. . Do you think ALL articles should be NPOV und subordinated to whatever "consensus" a small number of persons with same political opinion may define as "the Wikipedias consensus"?

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually I have answered those questions several times and worked a lot to make svwp neutral, But you are not interested in that. You are just interested to try to missunderstand what people writes on svwp, therefor I do not write any answers to the questions to you... which is the same as many here have said. It is just sad to see what you are doing here. (I know you are fighting to be able to stay on Svwp, But the best way would have been to do as I told you on svwp in a humble way... but you missunderstood: ”I do not want to see you permanent blocked. Please stop being sO aggressive towards everyone. I you think some are trying to make you angry to be blocked, keep writing about the subject and sources, then you make it easier for is admins to tell these people to stop. But of you proceed it is hard to see what (you think) others do” (freely from my memory)) and I Hope you will calm down soon and read the KAW again with ”new glasses” so you understand it is your debate technic that makes everyone upset (and that seems have been like that since at least 2005, I think because I looken at your admin-elections cos you mentioned it somewhere on these three pages. Not ’’what’’you write about, But ’’how’’ you discuss attacking everyone that are ”against” you. That is the problem. Please reread and think about it. Because I was, before, one of those who did not want to block you permanently... But you Can not scare users to stop writing or not dare to write in articles you have contributed in. That is not according to how Wikipedia works. (written by Swedish Admin Adville, who forgot to sign his comment) (This was written by me. Forgot to sign: Adville (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC))
Many words used, to once again, NOT answer the questions Adville, which everyone with eyes can see. The admins of the Swedish Wikipedia Way. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Adville, can you please provide links, diffs, and translation to verify your claims, that I scare users to stop writing? because when an admin gives such a claim, without verification, is NOT how an admin on Wikipedia should work. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who cares are free to look at kaw and the admin elections on svwp and use Google translate. I did. And I do not have the time to proceed to answer all your insinuations about me and my coworkers on svwp. This is too much and I do not understand how anyone will be able to understand all your conspirationtheories here when all is mixed up. Sorry. Over and out. Back to svwp and my real life. Adville (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Adville, maybe you can please help people in the real world outside Swedish Wikipedia, by providing links, diffs and translation, that support your claim? Because you spend a lot of time repetering opinions, but you dont come up with one single evidence for what you claim about my person. can you please provide links, diffs, and translation to verify your claims, that I scare users to stop writing? because when an admin gives such a claim, without verification, is NOT how an admin on Wikipedia should work.Dan Koehl (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you should use the Swedish model, and order five selected persons, to declare here on this page, how happy they are, not following Wikipedia standards, not follow common NPOV, and not follow the Wikipedia Policy? maybe they can also describe how much better all other Wikipedias would be, if they would put all five pillars, Policy and rules in the trash bin, and just let 10 people rule the entire global Wikimedia with a "consensus", where they tell million of users how they should behave, and write articles? MAYBE this is actually a bright future for Wikipedia, making everything so much easier? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Dan, I am in no position to order anyone to abstain from doing anything, and have neither done so. What I did was to write, as my personal opinion, that I considered it pointless to continue discussing with you, due to the deminishing quality of your arguments. / Ternarius (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I see Ternarius, but I view it very serious, when Swedish Wikipedias burocrat, instead of explaining for the world, why you dont follow the Wikipedia Policy and NPOV, you prefer to, on svwiki, to describe my report as a Strawman-Farce? I think we could all expect that you can at least try to motivate, why svwiki is forking, and why this should be accepted by the rest of the community? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
DoNotFeedTroll
I would furthermore, ask you, Ternarius, did anyone from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees give you permission to fork, and stop use established rules and Policy for Wikipedias? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I find it pointless to debate with somebody using loaded questions. Nothing good will come from this discussion, so I am out of it. Please do not ping me anymore, I have this page on my watchlist. / Ternarius (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[
I still have to ask you Ternarius, burocrat on en:Swedish Wikipedia, how can you allow the graphical sign (copy here on the right) forbidding people of expressing their opinions sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia (Swedish equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard)? Does this, in your opinion reflect an open forum, where users are allowed to express their views, when they see this sign, relizing if they have any kind of objection to violating the five pillars, NPOV and Wikipedia Policy, they may be regarded as TROLLS on the single only page on entire swedish Wikipedia where the issue has been discussed?? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to ask you Ternarius, burocrat on en:Swedish Wikipedia, can you provide a link for us, where we can read about a "Swedish consensus", where it was decided to abandon the five pillars, the NPOV and the Wikipedia Policy? How many users participated, where were we invited to participate in the the discussions, where is the official declaration, that en:Swedish Wikipedia should not anymore follow the common rules, which should be applied on all Wikipedias? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Svwp is no fork. In this case the core is that even if you are a experienced user breaking Wikipedia etiquette too many times was not accepted. You make a lot of accusations and you accuse others to define what the truth is. But what are you doing yourself? You even request me to be desysoped at meta, claiming I have used admin tools against you, when I never has. This is easly checked in my logs. You use a tragic story every one was sad about to indicate the existance of a cabal on svwp. There is no cabal among admins at svwp. I have never used e-mail or IRC or any other channel outside Wikipedia to discuss you, or discussed article content in that way. Elections are held yearly. All admins are also contributors to the encyklopedia. You forget that also users that are not admins have worked with the articles and chared their opinions in disussions and KAW. And among users of svwp there are diffrent views. Only about your discussion style there were consensus that it was not accepteble this time. Höstblomma (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Since you, as admin, after a discussion about an article, reported me, and had me banned, @Höstblomma: can you please here give diffs and TRANSLATION, of your claimed "evidence" where you told the community that I hade been breaking Wikipedia etiquette, so you could get me blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 10
09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have already done that in Requests for comment/Do something about svwiki. This KAW was after several discussion and just not one and not about discussion only with me but with others users as well. Between you and me, to make it clear, it started with you not liking me tho have opinions about the elephant article and the choice of headline for the subpage. But you are the one trying to make an advantage of the fact that most people probably are not swedish speaking here on meta. For example beside your claims on how certain words are translated, in spite of every source, you also claimed another user wishes you to burn. This is not correct. What the user was writing was "do not put more wood on his fire". Höstblomma (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
You mention your personal opinions above, Höstblomma, but they are no evidence.@Höstblomma: can you please here give diffs and TRANSLATION, of your claimed "evidence" where you told the community that I hade been breaking Wikipedia etiquette, so you could get me blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
if you honestly believe, Höstblomma, that yours and 6 other peoples opinion, is an evidence that I have broken rules on Wikipedia, I can not help from seeing this as a confirmation, that my claims are verified, when I compare the methods of blocking users on svwiki, with a how a lynchmob, motivated the hanging of a claimed horse thief in the Wild West, without giving any kind of evidence to the claims. can you please here give diffs and TRANSLATION, of your claimed "evidence" where you told the community that I hade been breaking Wikipedia etiquette, so you could get me blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussions about Dan Koehl[edit]

As you most likely know, Dan, I have defended you against the requests for permanent blocks that tend to pop up now and then on on the Swedish Wikipedia, but this was far to low. With rhetorics like that, I am more and more convinced that a shorter, cooling-off block, as the present one, could be appropriate. / Ternarius (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Ternarius:, for that but in your function as one of svwikis bureaucrats, I believe your input to defend the NPOV and svwikis future development, is of higher importance, than any ambition, to try to personalize my report, instead of discussing this issue itself. . FYI, I have also today informed Wikimedia Sverige about what I see as as severe problem, when a project is forking. Its not about persons, its about the entire credibility for all Wikipedias, which is jeopardized, by the present situation. I suggest that you and the other 2 bureaucrats, start to think about how the present situation can be improved, rather than which kind of punishment are suitable, for the longest serving contributor to the project you govern. if sv.wikipedia would be brought back to its intentions, Im sure, there is less need for any kind of defence of its users, against stalking, harassment's, and similar from admins. if rules and policy would be applied, that would surely be enough to create a better working environment, which is not based on fear, threats, and semi-medieval methods of of admins trying to control HOW users contribute. APOV can never be the future for any Wikipedia. Its intellectually, a Dead end (street). Dan Koehl (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The question is if you are treated as you are because "someones" on Swedish Wikipedia want to silence you, in which case it might be described as forking, or if you are treated that way because your style of discussion is unacceptable. In the latter case, a disussion about your behaviour is motivated. I have defended you against requests for pemanent bans, which I consider preposterous and often motivated more by personal dislike, but I have never opposed shorter blocks - your rhetoric is a problem. / Ternarius (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss my person on my user page @Ternarius:, the topic on this page is about the present forking on svwiki, where you are bureaucrat. Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The topic you have lifted is forking, which is not correct. Ternarius just explains the problem we have with your discussion style. That is the same as I tried to explain here. And I am also one of the persons that tried to make it not a too long ban. Adville (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Theres no reason to try to interpret my claims. if anyone has any question regarding my claims, Im willing to answer, but I request not to be interpreted, Please discuss my person on my user page @Adville: Dan Koehl (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see my above answer: What you claim is about forking, I mean is a response to your aggressive style of discussion. / Ternarius (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Theres no reason to try to interpret my claims. if anyone has any question regarding my claims, Im willing to answer, but I request not to be interpreted, Please discuss my person on my user page @Ternarius: Dan Koehl (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I gather no one bothers to look into this. So, I bring the issue into another step:

Lets imagine that, regardless if I should be regarded as a messenger, or even a guilty source to problems I have described. lets for some minutes, assume you are totally right, and assume I am totally wrong, and all I addressed here is founded on the possibility, that I am a very bad person, Im am the big bad wolf, and all problems I have described, was only because of me, and my destructive behaviour.

So lets move to next section, sv.wikipedia. without me, (below) where we pretend, that Im not existing, OK? Without me intervening, please go ahead, and describe the situation of sv.wikipedia, where we pretend that Im not existing. Please describe, possible problems you you identify, maybe quarrels, possible solutions for those problems, structures and strategies for a new future, possible future Scenarios, and above that, maybe some ideas how to make svwiki grow again, in contributors, and become a more peaceful place, in regard to working environment. What different strategies can be applied? Strict implementing how other Wikipedias work? or alternative ways of development? Or keeep the svwiki like it is, with the present group of admins, creating a nice little museum, where not much happends? Without my name mentioned, pretend that I dont exist. Please feel free! Others may be invited to join, and even more others may be interested in you views. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

svwiki is not a little island somewhere, connected to other wikies through links, Its supposed to be a part of a broader, wiki community. In what ways can this be described, developed, and outlined? OR, should svwiki really be its own little island where the Swedish deal with everything their way? And every new user, regardless of experience from other wikis, should adapt to how the small community decide how it should be? Move down to under the next heading, to continue those discussions, please. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussions about sv.wikipedia (and NOT Dan Koehl)[edit]

??? (so far, nothing) Dan Koehl (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are. Some above in the text and some on the other two pages you started about the same subject. But you are right that noone from other wikis have answered to anything here yet. Br Adville (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Dan: This page is not visible here. Br. Adville (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved by adding {{rfc subpage}}. Sgd. —Hasley 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)