Requests for comment/Swedish Wikipedia blocking policy violation and Administrator abuse

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. Given the time sensitivity of this topic, and the long time that has passed since both the opening and last contributions - I'm closing this without drawing conclusions. Admin abuse is probably better addressed on a local level anyway. Effeietsanders (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


I have been unjustifully blocked 3 days on Swedish Wikipedia, by user:Skottnis, a user who has been active one year (first edit 2016-01-06), with totally 2 325 edits]. His official motivation is that I was blocked because I have put templates on articles, against "masses of protest" sw: Du är blockerad i 3 dygn för att du fortsätter massmalla artiklar trots omfattande protester

But I was not vandalizing, or damaging the wiki, I was working and contributing, not violating any rule at all, and In reality "the masses" are three or four users (with limited experience from AutoWikiBrowser?) objecting!

Users I was discussing this with on Village pump, when I got blocked) but he says he put emphasis on that two other users on page Requests for administrator attention: Blockera Dan Koehlsuggested I should be blocked (Sw: Jag har ingen åsikt i sakfrågan, om artiklarna ska massmallas eller ej, utan agerade i ärlighetens namn främst utifrån att MagnusA gav bifall åt Tostarpadius begäran på blockering).

But, his motivation is not backed up by the rules, and is in my point of view, violating the rules for blocking of users. The rules says, a user should be warned before blocking, but I was never warned.

It has to be remembered, that he was probably told to block me, by older admins discussiing on their IRC. I would not be surprised if they used an admin who never blocked anyone before, so the guilt wouldnt caste shadows on them.
[personal issues]
Issues which I have understanding for, but it seems to me, they may not ideal for an admin, who is blocking users with almost 15 years of service?

I made a remark about this, which they now interprete as personal attack, and as motivation to increase my blocking longer time.

He has, since then, (20 minutes back?) removed those comments permanently, so they are not anymore included in the page history...

I am Swedish Wikipedia oldest user (verified),I am Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and Member of Wikimedia Sverige and a wikimedia user and contributor since 30th of September 2002. Im active on several projects as member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, contributing user, picture uploader, rollbacker, patroller, admin, checkuser and bureaucrat. Since 2015 I am also member of the Wikimedia OTRS team, I have totally on Wikimedia almost 135,000 edits, over 23 000 edits on SvWp, where I also started over 2000 articles. On SvWp I made the first Taxobox ever in 2003, and started several of the present projects, and was the first admin ever. On the list for this months upgrade of articles, I have during January the leading position, adding +32 236 to the article about noble family Gyllenstierna.

Does this rollbacker, patroller, admin and bureaucrat sound like a vandal, who should be blocked by a newcomer, because two persons asked him to do so?

Since some time, I use AutoWikiBrowser to submit and full edit factboxes to several categories, like Template:Noble family, Template:Noble personTemplate:Building etc from Templates I made, like Noble family template (the most complete family template on Wikipedia, should be interesting for Wikidata people!).

In order to keep track on articles missing those templates, Some years back I created hidden categories for articles where the factboxes are missing, and was using AWB to sumbit the category to relevant articles, so I could later submit the missing factbox templates. Some three users got upset, sais "it was disturbing, asking why I not simply submitted factbox on articles, (indicating they lack experience with AWB) and while I was explaining this, adding maybe 15 more articles, I was blocked.

And after I started to argue for unblock, [ (har nu lagt in formell begäran om avblockering, låser för att det inte skall bli hundratusen bytes diskussionsinlägg de närmaste dygnen) my user page became blocked], with the motivation from user:Skottnis: to prevent hundred of thousands of discussion items during the next days(har nu lagt in formell begäran om avblockering, låser för att det inte skall bli hundratusen bytes diskussionsinlägg de närmaste dygnen) who after this, himself started discussions with me, until a user told him I cant answer...

Among them, he gave new explanation to my block, that he belives I am comparable with a bot, and this is how you stop bots, by blocking, when a discussion is going on.

But the discussion was about something, which is more than 2 or 3 years old, when I started using categories where fact box templates were missing. Its anot a new thing.

user:Skottnishas since then also permanently deleted 7 edits and edit comments on my talk page.

Although, the general policy says such issues should be locally on the wikis, I politely request that people from outside starts to investigate whats going on with the Swedish Wikipedia, where blockings quite often is used as threats towards users, even in POV and NPOV cases, where the users opinion should be accepted, and not forced in any direction by threats.

This is not the first time I have been blocked on SwWp, last time was a year ago because I critisized the swedish admins, and Officially for Trolling, nothing more, no link to rule I had been breaking or likewise.
8th of February 2015, I was blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia, officially for trolling, after I had criticised the more active 10-15 admins for acting like an unofficial group, creating false consensus by supporting each other, not respecting NPOV, but acting APOV, not always communicating openly but often secretly with alternative methods than Wikipedia pages, and using blocking and threats of blocking not only as as a tool to protect the project and its users, but also to establish an elite group of power, by means of scaring users to have "right" opinions, and exluding people with "wrong" opinions by blocking. Blocking of registered users has increased lately on SvWp, and the working environment those most admins create for the users, is reducing the freedom of the Wikipedia. Those admins will support each other and be reelected again and again, since they have managed to form such a large number that only a an organised action from Stewards and Meta, or a campaign by the normal users, could liberate the Swedish Wikipedia, something unlikely to happen, since in most cases of conflicts Meta Stewards mostly send such issues back to the local community, where its mostly one individual user against a group of admins, why users migrate to EnWp or simply quit in frustration.

As SwWp oldest member, I can hereby certify, that things are not in order on the SwWp. You can leave it as it is, or investigate. But please be sure, that when a wiki is not NPOV anymore, but APOV (admin point of view) and have a group of admins acting like an elite and aristocrazy, threatening to block users with "wrong ideas" or "wrong opinions", using arche old sentenses from the bible asking if the user has been overthinking his sins (har du gjort bot och bättring?) and likevise bullshit, very few people dare to complain, most will speak against this, in order to gain more credit from older admins, so you may check the neutral staistics, if contributing users are increasing or decreasing etc. many of the admins also speak very good, but they have, what the Indians called "a split tounge". (de: mit gespaltener Zunge reden)

Regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want this RfC to have any sort of positive outcome, I would recommend taking a few steps first: 1. Discuss this with the local community. You're blocked for three days, but after that you can start a local discussion and talk with them about it. You could also appeal your current block. 2. Reformat this into a clear description of a problem and with a clear proposal on how to fix it. Without doing these two things, this RfC will be closed as out of process or just sit around for two years before it is archived. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Ajraddatz: for your comments!
  1. I and several others has been discussing this within SwWp before, with no result other than threats, or users getting blocked, and users have left the SwWp to EnWp.
  2. I was blocked for three days, now they discuss to increase that, using my comments about the admin['s ...] problem, as "personal attack", which it wasnt intended by me. This is twisting of my words.
  3. How can I appeal my present block when Im blocked from mu user page? I did start an appeal, and the admin closed me from editing my user page. (and after this started a discussion with me, until someone told him I cant answer...)
  4. Please describe what you mean with a clear description of a problem and with a clear proposal on how to fix it. My proposal is unblocking me, since I was blocked against the rules, and without warning, in the middle of discussions about the issue.

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

RfCs here take months, if not years to reach a resolution. They need to be aimed high at systemic issues in the community - this doesn't work as an appeal process for a single block. My best suggestion is to wait out the block, and try to discuss it locally after it has ended. If you'd like, I can add a comment to the discussion they are currently having that you would like to appeal the block, and request that they give you back talk page access through which to do so. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice @Ajraddatz:, and yes please add comment to the discussion they are currently having, that I would like to appeal the block, that they give me back talk page access, and if possible for you, that it was against the rules, no warning, and I didnt break any rule. As you can see on the latest submission to the dscussions, a brave user asks whats the problem, the template is from 2011, so it cant be a surprice with existence of the template, and he asks if this issue just got critisized because It was me who made the edits, indicating Im a victim of mobbing.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Similair edit from another user: How can you be upset by a category being "unnessecary and disturbing" when you hardly see it, and it is used, is out of my understanding. Edits could have been done slower, and maybe with a bot, but the critic above is standing on a very low platform Dan Koehl (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to comment the block itself here, because that's a discussion for svwp. But I do want to say that, the comment [...] was completely unneccesary. How well I fit as an admin shouldn't be dependent on [...], it should depend on how good my edits on wikipedia are. You don't go through a personal checkup for extremist views, mental issues, drug use or something like that when you apply for adminship. I decided to trust the Wikipedia community and share that information, but you decided to use it against me. I find it rather outrageous that you even went so far as to talk about this on Facebook. Either way, I would gladly see an "investigation" done on this, as it is clear Dan feels like he is not being fairly judged by us locals on svwp, and I don't think further discussion on svwp will make him feel more fairly judged. Skottniss (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I did remove (the substance of) the comment. Skottniss just deleted the offending versions. And I think the block by Skottniss was totally appropriate, in line with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if not otherwise (the length could be discussed, but many administrators saw the action and could have made a change). Now, that short block is irrelevant, as the attack on Skottniss (repeated here, also here removed by me) will render Dan Koehl a longer block, possibly a permanent ban.
As the user himself states above, many administrators seem to agree about the block, so attacking a single one is illogical and unfair. I think that action might demonstrate the reasons the user has problems on sw-wp. The current block was caused by mass edits continued despite protests (whether the edits are good or "uncontroversial" is irrelevant once several seasoned users protest). I think such behaviour should or should not be tolerated according to the wishes of the local community, and blocks for such reasons are not anything to overrule on Meta. Some users may get away with more than others, but that is how things work over here. If somebody wants to take a look at the issue, by all means do, but I am not sure the user will respect your view any more than ours.
--LPfi (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

While users above is trying to avoid the issue regarding the block, I must say, a block is not irreleveant for the user who got blocked, especially if its against the rules. Its good to see that admins above seem to confirm it was against the rules, and refering to dont follow the rules, but as a victim, I cant share the joy over this. Secondly, "many admins support" is mentioned, but WHEN i got blocked, it was ONE, as far as I know. The the admin who blocked me, now has upport doesnt surprise me, and it doesnt really give more confidence in how things work at SwWp.

Some edits from the admin and other users has also been deleted permanently. I find it unethical with different accusations against my person, while comments from others involved get deleted, so we cant see what THEY said and did. This is far from a transparent and ethic organisation. I think however, it gets more and more transparent with the issue that I am a victim of mobbing. And once again, "my crime" was working, I didnt harm the project a single bit, and this has been repeatedly mentioned in the latest discussions.

Meanwhile, NOONE discuss weather the block was against the rules, or rather, now admins claim, they dont have to follow rules, cite from above as Skottniss was totally appropriate, in line with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Thank you, that you confirm that my block was against the rules, and that you find it appropriate to ignore rules. We users on the swedish Wikipedia seem to be in good hands...

And "personal attack is mentioned. Can this "personal attack" be described? How exactly did I attack? with which words? is it against rules to simply cite was a user writes on his user page? Is this a personal attack? When this accusation gets repeated over and over again, I think number one is to define weather this is really true. Since I was blocked against the rules firstly, and may be Blocked forever now because of personal attack, if I understand the discussions, then I must ask, where is the evidence for this personal attack? I also fint it extremely flat, that when users are defending me in the discussions, they get attacked. This is very low. The swedish Wikipedia and its users, for sure, earn better protection from this corrupt group that dominate the rest, and obvioulsy think they are right, when they ignore rules and policy on the Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A few notes. It is common practice on SvWP to block someone if that person is doing controversial edits and doesn't stop when asked to (in this case by several users). That has been confirmed by several users in the a bit lengthy discussion on sv:WP:KAW. Maybe our guidelines needs to be updated accordingly. All users can add a template to request unblocking (which Dan did) and some other admin will then review the block. In this case I reviewed the block, I am also the user quoted above supporting the edits that started it all. Since I didn't see any sign that Dan would stop his edits during the ongoing discussion, and also because he made an completely inappropriate remark on the admin that had blocked him, I did not remove the block. As Dan has continued with his comments elsewhere the discussion has now moved towards a much longer block. That would be in order to protect SvWP from such comments in the future.
@Dan Koehl: If you want to edit on SvWP again any time soon there is an urgent need for you to show some sign that you will not make any further similar comments and that you will respect consensus, both in the original question and any other. There is a suggestion to lift the block to give you the opportunity to comment and I strongly suggest you use that very wisely. --Averater (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There was no consensus, and still isnt, there was three persons doing comments and asking questions, thats all. I have never broken any real consessus, while the nowdays common on SwWp fabricated artificial consensus by 2-3 persons, may be questionable. I was explaining to them when I got blocked. I didnt get any warning according to the rules, that I would be blocked, when doing perfectly accepted edits until now. (The speed may have been fast, but OK according to general rules reg AWB. I have been falsely blocked, against the rules, and want to add that Blocking and unblocking, according to the rules should never be used as a threat against persons, compare with what I have written about biblical "sinners" etc above. What has been interpreted as personal attacks, is so far a rumour without evidence. People have according to their taste permanently deleted different comments to that subject, and no links have been given to my so called "personal attack" when I simply cited what the blocking admin had written on his userpage (now deleted) and asked if this really was ideal person to handle admin issues and block people. Especially when blocking against the rules. Whatever is interpreted as attack, I think anyone is able to compare with permanently blocking the oldest user on SwWp, after you have yourself stated that the reason for the block, is now regarded as a very minor problem. So, if I call some a bad word ONCE, this can not be compared to block someone who has contributed 15 years to SwWp for lifetime. I dont think its fair to lift my block, in order to press me to "confess my crime" in order to unlift a block, which was against the rules in the first place. This sounds a little bit like Towern in the 1500´s?

So:

  • Blocking and unblocking should not be used as a treat, or like with medevial torture, unblocking "if the accused confess his crime." so also complete false accusations get sanctioned by the user.
  • Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users
  • I was not damaging Sw Wikipedia
  • No links or evidence has been presented refering to any misconduct, disruption, or damage of the project by me.~
  • The mentioned consensus, Im accused of breaking, is not exisiting. If it would exist, it would affct a lot more people than me, and lead to different consequeces which I think the present mob hasnt properly analyzed.
  • And in any case, such things should be discussed, or should have been discussed by the community, when that template was created in 2001. Its absurd to accuse me of disupting athe project by using a template, which didnt fabricate, and which hasben used on Wikipedia for 5 years!
Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community.

Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Topic bans, page protections and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking?

One totally crazy detail: I didnt need that Template. I was actually just categorizing articles which lacked factboxes, when I found it, and thought it should be correct to use. Like I wrote, it has been used by others during 5 YEARS, and during this time, not been llabelled as contriversal. NOW people complain that the template was ditsurbing (when I used it) that its ugly and good knows what arguments come up, but it has to be reminded, I didnt create that template, I didnt used it before, but other users did without getting blocked, and I didnt even need it, if the three confused people who started to argue about my edits had been more precise in that they for some personal reasons hated that template, it would have very easy for me not to add. I just used it because I thought I SHOULD do.

  • Please provide a link, where it is mentioned that the template, or the use of it is contriversial?
  • Why do you keep templates on SwWp, if you all of a sudden think they are so destructive, that someone gets blocked when using them?
  • Why dont you inform on the page on that Template, thats its contiversial, and that using may lead to blocking?
  • Why didnt anyone else using the template got blocked?
  • Why have you deleted all comments, which are source to the accusation that I have severely attacked a person?
  • Why isnt a single link provided, as to the accusations against my person?

Do you think theres any risk, that when you avoid to discuss why I was blocked against the rules in the first place, now discuss if I should be blocked one, three years, or all my life, without providing a single link and evidence to my "crime", but just a "consensus" by 20 persons, based on a rumour most of them havnt verified, and where noone asks for a link, a source, to where its explained that the template I used is contriversial and illegal, and that using it is taking a risk of being blocked, noone asks for a verification as to wether the block really was in order, and not asking for a link to my "personal attack" and an evidence that my comment was intended as an attack to which I object strongly.

I belive i, as everyone else, may question wether an admin is suitable for that role, without getting blocked for life time? especially if the user openly declare on his user page, that he is very instabable, and all I did was citing his own words?

I f I were an admin, having one years wiki experience is blocking someone from Denmark against the rules just becasue two perons suggest this, and I have written on my userpage that I hate danish people, they make me sick and I get depression by danes, would it be a crime, and a personal attack, if that poor dane would question the admins judgement? And why should a newly elected admin after one year on Wikipedia, claiming himself, that he is unstable, get more protection, than a long time user, he is blocking against the rules?

Can anyone precise what the difference is, between whats going on SwWp, and when five guys pointed on a sixth guy, saying he was a horse thief, and hanged him, in the "good old days"? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions 1-4. There are no link. The templete is used sometimes... That was not the reason for the block. You have been told the reason, but I will inform again: The use of the templete was questioned by some users, and you, yourself, moved the discussion to tje village pump to get a second or third opinion. While the discussion was going if it was correct or not you did what you know you shouldn't: you proceeded in a rapid pace to put the templete in new articles. To stop that to see what the village pump discussion would say you had to be stopped. (And you know that that kind of not listening to the community, but proceeding editing, has lead to precautios blocks before). Three days was too much, and for me the templete doesn't matter, but the block could easily have been changed or withdrawn after you had said you would wait until the discussion was over. However you instead for said you would wait (as uou know is easy) you questioned the mental health of the admin. (Yes. He had written on his user page he ws not working but home sick leave. ) When others saw this and said it was too bad done you started to write and question this admin for the same reason on the swedish wikipedia group (deleted) on facebook, and then on you own page. You say you do not know what's wrong because there are no diffs. That is wrong. User Grillo deleted the facebook thread after telling you to erase the parts about the admin (you refused). Look on your page, because those who think you did wrong what you wrote have said on svwp, kaw, that they read there and after that made there descision. Also it I want you here on meta to know we very resently lost a good contributor who had some personal issues. His candle is lit on his user page both on enwp and svwp. Therefor we are extra careful to not let anyone opres someone else who is doing good work, but right now have personal problems. Even if you have been a long time user you need to be nice to others and think they act for the best for wikipedia. Ask, but no personal attacks. (And the conspiration theory that we send the newes admin to block the oldest user is not true. Why should we risk his personal health by telling him to "attack" the oldest user? We wants to keep tje users at our place and be many admins to avoid a small group with much power. The more admins the less risk for that) Adville (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I corrected some gramatical errors. I also want to point out that it was not skottniss who blocked the user discussion, but anlther admin while skottniss was writing to Dan. And as information I just unblocked the user discussion for Dan so he might say his opinion and explain on svwp. ####

Thank you, I appreciate that you opened my discussion page, but maybe you can stretch your understanding to, that I may not completely trust you on SwWp, but prefer to discuss on a location where you dont delete comments and sources for later accusations, and where fewer people can follow the discussions, cause of language limitations?


May I then remind you about the recomendations on rules reg admins:

Olika användare lägger vikt vid olika saker, men viktigast är förstås bedömningen av huruvida användaren kommer att förvalta verktygen på ett korrekt och för Wikipedia ändamålsenligt sätt. Många anser därutöver att användaren ska ha förståelse för och följa Wikipedias policy och riktlinjer, och så gott som det går följa gängse Wikipediaetikett.

If a newmade admin breaks against this, anyone is entitled to question his judgement, without risk of being punished for that.

  • Blocking should not be used as punishment.

The reason I was told, why I was blocked can be read on my user page. You have been blocked, because you put templates on many articles in spite of masses of critic.=Du är blockerad i 3 dygn för att du fortsätter massmalla artiklar trots omfattande protester.

The truth: It was 2 guys discussing this, and making questions, and I was explaining to them about reasons, and how people work with AWB. I had put the template, which I had no idea it was controversial, becasue during the five years before it wasnt, and still isnt, as far as I understand.

Furthermore, the admin Skottniss returned and explained more which can be read on my user page, until of course, someone delete that also:

  • To be honest, I acted primarly because Magnus supported Tostarpadius request on block (Sw: utan agerade i ärlighetens namn främst utifrån att MagnusA gav bifall åt Tostarpadius begäran på blockering)

Neither Tostarpadius, Magnus, or the admin, contacted me on my user page before and warned me, against using the template, which was OK until yesterday, when used by others. In the middle of discussion, I was blocked. I think in the meantime I had edited 15 articles, following the rules for AWB.

You claim: You say you do not know what's wrong because there are no diffs. which is not true. What I wrote, is that if you block someone for life time, a month, or a day, you should provide some sort of evidence for an accusation. maybe not if its an IP vandalizing, but in this sense, without asking for any special treatment, when discussing a life time block for the oldest person on Wikipedia, without one single diff, is absurd, isnt it?

It has been discussed that I broke against consensus, also, without showing a link to when I broke to it, or a link to the consensus, and we all know why, its not existing.

There is no such consensus.There wasnt any masses complaining on me putting templates on 24o articles, and the template wasnt controversial for the last five years. I never got warned, and it would have been easy to write on my user page, Dan, if you continue to add that template on articles, we will block you, but noone did. The rues were not followed that a user should be warned before a block. And I did not you question the psycical strength of the admin he provided the text about that himself, I questioned weather he was sutitable as admin, with the motivation of, and with his own words, which he deleted afterwords as well as other comments on other places.

The rules Your rules also:

  • När blockeringar inte skall göras:
    • Innan någon först informerat och varnat användaren, i de fall där det finns en möjlighet att användaren agerat av okunskap och inte medvetet gått in för att klottra eller på annat sätt förstöra.

After the block you closed me from editing my user page, Any common sense would suggest that one should let a user with 15 years be able to explain what he did, and why, instead of accuse him for various things, and not letting him defend himself?

Im sorry, theres now discussions, MAYBE will the confused users eventually establish a consensus for that template, but this hole issue has gone absurd.

I repeat the wise words:

Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Topic bans, page protections and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking?

Until now, theres not a single proof that I have broken against any rules on swedish Wikipedia, in regard to this block. While the admin who blocked me, broke against several rules, when he blocked me. For some reason this is not discussed, instead is referred to that the community should show him empathy.

You are

  • violating rules, bragging that rules should not be followed by an admin:Skottniss was totally appropriate, in line with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
  • you dont provide a single diff, reg the accusations against me
  • You ask me to show empathy for an admin you have chosen, who himself told everyone on his page is very unstable, and who blocked me against the rules
  • when I question him, as an admin, you accuse me for personal attack
  • while you dont threat me better than an ip teenager who is vandalizing Wikipedia
  • And you try to establish a "consensus" based on a rumour, since 95% of the users, who presntly "vote" how long time I should be blocked, hasnt seen any diff or evidence, to my crimes.
  • And you use blocking as a punishment, and discuss that I may be unblocked if I provide the right answers= which we know, like in medevial time, "confess my crimes, and ask humbly for forgivness etc which is also totally against the general ethic standards on Wikipedia, which is not a semi-christian, medevial project.

I am not a vandal, a teenager destroying Wikipedia. I demand to be handled as any user, and according to Wikipedia rules and common sense.

You can not admit that this was an error, a mistake, which could have been handled much, much better, and now you you argue for me committing crimes, as to which you have no link, no evidence, no neutral analyze, but only opinions from 20 angry persons, of which 95% belive in a rumor, a claim, which hasnt been neutrally analyzed. On top of that you claim I should show empathy for people blocking me, against the rules. You accuse me of personal attacks, when I cite words from a user page. You accuse me of putting a temple against the will of masses of users, while they were only two, both of them confused, and with limited knowledge how you work with AWB, you claim I used a controversial template, which was never before yesterday described as such.

And you neglect: When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia.

Remember, all I did , was just working. Submitting factboxes to hundred of articles, according to, and following the standard. Improving articles, one, two days ago with almost 40 000 characters. I was, in good faith contributing to the project, which I did long before you even found it.

And why did you delete 7 comments on my user page? Antything "contriversial" written there, which I shouldnt know about?

When you above accused me of lying telling me your version of the motivation as to why I was blocked, (with no provided fiff, or evidence) I herebye once again, repeat the admin Skottniss words: I have no opinion in the subject, if the articles should have been added with the template or not, but to be true, I acted primarly because Magnus supported Tostarpadius request of blocking you = Sv: Jag har ingen åsikt i sakfrågan, om artiklarna ska massmallas eller ej, utan agerade i ärlighetens namn främst utifrån att MagnusA gav bifall åt Tostarpadius begäran på blockering diff (Tostarpadius was part in the subject one of the critisizers when I submitted the template on the articles, and Magnus as well, which means the newly elected admin Skottniss (joined Wp 2016-01-06 diff) acted upon wish of my two opponents in a discussion, without having personal insight, and beside, WHO on wikipedia blocks someone because two users ask this to be done, and without discussing with the user, and warning him before the block?)

This is swedish Wikipedia. A charade, becasue now the admin Skottnis verify he made an impulsive decision:

NOW the admin Skottnis write on his user page: I understand, I was a little unsure cause he is an established user, it became a little of impulsive decision, based on that Magnus supported (magnus is I think, an old fox within the community so to speak?) It was expected that he (the blocked user) would make comments, as well as others in the community, it was far from a controversial issue, even if the blocking had been shorter. But but, I learn more, how to react in controversial situations, I understand that 3 days was an overkill in that situation

The admin Skottnis continues: I didnt really became offended by his comments, but realize I have to be more careful with what/where I write things. Presently Im a little too sensible for comments of this type. His comment wasnt so bad, but I chose to remove page versions in order to avoid comments in the near future. Further on, I may be more open about such issues again, but right now I think its best to minimize such comments, once again, thank you o much! User:Skottnis diff

Question: Am I an experiment rabbit, to be used by young guys, who has been here for about a year? Someone to earn more experience from, by blocking me???

Admin Skottnis now admitting mistake, and saying "my comment wasnt so bad", yet I, his experiment rabbit, is on the way to get a life time block, accused of personal attack, when I questioned his admin capacity. Which everyone is entitled to do, and shouldnt lead to that they get blocked as punishment!

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You seems to not understand that the block was not because the templete was bad, but because it was questioned and discussed on the village pump, but although you know that and could have patience with adding it to more articles you proceeded. That was the thing you did wrong. It looked as you did not care about the discussion you know was going on, because "you were right". My guess is that you would have been blocked on enwp too for that behaviour. That was not a punishment but precautious if the edits would be no good. Yes, maybe the complaining users did not understand awb, but then the discussion had to end anyway before you proceed. This block was done because of that. The second part of the block has nothing to do with the first (which you could have avoided by having some patience. Because most certain you would have "won"). By using the admins own words like you did is a way of mastering him to make him less worth than you are. That is the part people are upset with, and that kind of mastering is not the first done by you, which also is a reason for the discussion about this long time block. Not as a punishment for you (even if it feels like that) but to protect users from being mastered. With nice words and focus on the subjects, not the contributor, you will come far and have a good relation with others (even if you do not agree with them). Hope you understand better now. I also hope you can sleep on this, analyze it without the anger you seems to have right now. Best regards Adville (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes and learns from them. This was one of them, for me. I would have blocked you even after longer consideration, the impulsive part of the block was the duration. After more thought put into it, it would have been more than enough with perhaps 6 hours, to let other people come in and take part of the ongoing discussion about the template before you kept adding it to more articles. 3 days was way too long from just that, I realize that now, 6 hours or 1 day at most would have been more appropriate. And no, I did not take your comment as that offensive, but that doesn't mean I think it was okay. I was the one who hid the page versions in the history. The only reason was so that I would minimize the risk of having more comments such as these threwn on me right now. In the future, when my mental health is more stable, I intend to make those versions visible again if it's not already been done by then. I try to judge this not based on how harsh I took the comment though, if those comments had been aimed to someone else I wouldn't have been so calm about all this. People who have so serious mental problems they get hospitalized for it, and with pontentially high risk of suicide, are in no good position to endure harsh comments of any kind. Even if I could handle this well, other people in similar situations might not handle it so well. My calm reaction to all this might also be due to the massive support I have gotten from everyone else on svwp, they've all been extremely nice to me. Again, my capacity as an admin should not be judged based on my mental health but on my edits. I have support for the block, although most other admins probably agree that the time period was a bit too long, it's nothing major. And again, other admins could have reduced the block duration if they wanted to. Skottniss (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Or, Skottniss, you could have commuicating with me? Following the rules and warned me? had you ever read the rules about blocking before you blocked me? maybe thats a good idea? And not (against the rules again) followed the wish of my 2 opponents Tostarpadius, and magnusA who blocked me a year ago, personal issue hmmm...?)in the discussion, who wanted me blocked, by controversial reasons, which Adville above confirmed, "I would have won"? Right? Maybe, after only one year on Wikipedia, you could have left this issue to persons with longer experience?

And Adville: -No I dont understand that, because the motivation the admin who banned is different from what you state above, which you dont back up with a diff, and noone told me what you tell me now, before I was banned, and adding maybe to 7 articles more can simply just not be reason for permanent blocking from Wikipedia, in an issue where I was right, since the template is not controversial, and noone else have been banned for using it.

− Its amusing listening to the guesses and speculations you base this issue on, I wonder in how many countries they send people to prison based on speculations, "I guess", etc. OR, if english Wp really block people permanently on guesses and speculations, and showing no diff at all, as evidence for the accusations??? Your interpretation of me "mastering" the admin, is a false accusation. An admin, blocking a "lifetime wikipedia" person, who is daily contributing with hundrads of edits and working hard, must realize, that his adminship, if he blocks someone against the rules, may be questioned, and Im entitled and fully free to do that. if an admin writes on his user page, I often lie, its not a personal attack to defend me with, by using that cite as an argument that I have been treated wrong. As admin you must know what you are doing, not blocking old time users becasue of what he himself describes as a an impulsive thing, based on two persons wish. You shouldnt block ANYONE when two opponents ask you to do so, you should only block someone who, with no doubt is damaging the project. I wasnt, and now the admin, and you, have verified this, especially when you write, most certain you would have "won".

I am not your experiment rabbit, free to use for some sort of game, where you claim you dont have to follow rules, show diffs, give evidence to accusations against me, etc. This is NOT how blockings should be used, you are presently violating the ethic, rules and responsibilty for admins, on Wikiedia. It may be fun for you, and as the admin Skottnis wrote, experience for him how to learn more (by doing mistakes?) but this is not fun for me, still being accused for things you havnt proven.

I should not be treated as a criminal, if you cant prove I am. You have the power, but not the right, to treat anyone like this. Its unfair, its against the rules, its not adult, and: its very inresonsible. You dont act with the best interst for Wikipedia, you act for some other, until now, not defined reason. What you are doing will never be forgotten, will never be cencored. Please reconsider what you are doing, and what reputation swedish Wikipedia may get. Start to clean up in the dark cellars, start to renew the SwWp, start to respect rules, including admins, start to represent ALL the mebers of the community, and not just the nearest admuin and not admin "friends" on different IRCs, and dont delete comments on peoples user pages in orde to remove text that may harm you, and treat everyone right and with justice, dont blocking as punishment or press people to "confess and ask for forgivness for teir "crimes" etc. And please, when people defend me, and question all this, dont make pressure on them, since when you claim that everyone is offended by you etc, this is not true. I have read the remarks when someone questioned the handling of this issue, and got a treat immediately. Wikiipedia is not Towern, and the swedish community are not pheasants, who you are supposed to rule. You are supposed to help and assist people, and protect the Wikipedia. You are presntly acting as Wikipedias enemy, yourself, using your power in an abusive way. This is not the right way to go, believe me, I have longer experience from Wikipedia than you have. regarding your last words, again an unverified acussation, read that discussion, and find out who discussed focused on the subject, and who, yes guess who, the one who wanted me blocked perhaps, who just attacks me personally. I can give you diffs far way back on this behaviour from alot of the users, that now accuse me of bad behaviour. When, did i report them, when did I accuse them, all of them playing a bad game with me and other users (can give you dousins of diffs ther as well) for many years? But now, you have gone to far. Accept that Im am just a faithful, ambitious contributor, wishing everything positive with the project, never stroyed it, never pushed anyone away, whicj is yet another of the accusations against me, (with no diffs, no evidence, no verification) I have contact with guys the present adminsitration hade scared off, and we can take a look on the staistics, and why numbers of contributors are declining. Please release your powers, and start to make SwWp open again. have tolerance with peoples different opinions, instead of trying to punish them until they go into submission, to get your permisson to edit Wikipedia. AND admit when you have done something wrong. Thanks for your wish, I will sleep, and ask you to ask yourself, how happy you would be, being blocked, maybe for lifetime, without a single evidence for a crime, by admins who vioalte the rules, supported by other admins who write Rules are to be ignored, judged without a single defender, attacked by a mob, who has forgot rules, justice, and judge me in absense of evidence. Only years watching this type of game escalating on SwWp, since 2005, give me the patience, not telling you what i really think, about all this. I wish you good luck, looking on yourself in the mirror.

Dan Koehl (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

26 minutes before I got blocked (2017-01-19 16:22), I had asked Larske (Versionen från 2017-01-19T 5:50) wether he could help me, inserting parameters in the Template for building, so I could insert location maps, which is already standard on EnWp, see Buckingham Castle, (this is one of the templates people who joined Wp shortly before, are presently asking why it exist? ) is this, do you mean a destructive Wikipedian, on his daily mission trying to disrupt and destroy the project, and not contributing to something constructive? During the last week, three persons started to delete my edits, becasue they wernt in their taste etc, not discussing before, one was the user who asked me to blocked, others are presently involved in the Lynch law discussions (Lynching, also known as Lynch law, an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging or other ways of execution) against me. magnusA, who supported blocking, making Skottnis to block me, blocked me a year ago, using the motivation "TRoll behaviour". Would you say, those two people initiating my blocking, are comepletely neutral, or does it seem like some sort of personal issue?

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have not read all the last. Just the beginning. It is interesting you proceed to think you are risken permanent block because of the templete, although I told you it is two different cases. The first, again, was preventive. And skottniss did correct (but too long block, but do you expekt everyone to be perfekt the first month as an admin? Thats why we cooperates. But I have already said this) tje discussion about block for longer time... read my answer again. Try to analyze it and not write in affect. Good night Adville (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I expect that the community elect a user to admin, on condition, that this admin follow the policy on Wikipedia, and its rules. The admin should also not suffer from anyhting that makes him, or her, emotionally or psychologically, instable. I dont consider that being perfect, its just something you demand from an admin. I have all understanding for peoples various issues, but not to the point that it excuses me being blocked against the rules, upon the wish of two people who had personal issues, one being opponent in the present discussion about factboxes on articles with buildings, and the other, being the one who blocked me a year ago, with the motivation, Troll behaviour.for a non-crime, and without warning, by Wikipediast freshest admin, with minor experience from the project. If someone kill me by mistake, I will also not excuse them, for not being perfect, regardless of thei mental issues.

Speaking about peronal attack, what you do you think about the comment: Om man beter sig som en empatistörd idiot (återigen inte menat som personangrepp utan som faktaobservation) och efter det inte har någon som helst självinsikt utan bara fortsätter beklaga sig över alla andras orättvisa behandling av en, finns det väl knappast någon anledning att vara aktiv på ett projekt som bygger på samarbete? Ju mindre tid svwiki behöver ödsla på detta desto bättre, anser jag. Bort med honom. Entheta (diskussion) 21 januari 2017 kl. 02.08 (CET)?

English: if you behave like an "empathydisturbed idiot" (once again, not a personal attack, just a fact observation) [...] the less time we need to waiste our time on this, the better...

Is Entheta already blocked? How long time will he blocked, a year, 5 years, ten years for ever?

Just asking, wether everyone is treated the same on SwWp, or if someone may be victim of mobbing, and others can go on, deleting my edits with further discussions, refer to me with different bad words etc, during 11 years now, (I can give you diffs dating back, how people treat me)

I questioned the ethic and capacity of an admin who blocked me against the rules. I believe I may do that citing his own description on himself. For this, Im under threat to be blocked permanently.

While someone call me a an "empathydisturbed idiot" , and may get a clap on his shoulder.

This is swedish Wikipedia...

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it matters if I was the one who took the decision or not, other admins supported the block. It doesn't matter if you think the decision was made on loose grounds at the time, noone except you still question the decision made. As I already said, the duration was too long, and the duration would most likely have been reduced if you hadn't made the comment about my mental health. It is appropriate to assume that all other admins stand behind the block, since other admins could have unblocked you. The block was not intended as punishment but as a way to avoid you creating more work for other Wikipedians having to revert your edits. I'm sad to hear that you feel like you are being "attacked by a mob". To be perfectly clear, I have no IRC-contact with other admins, I made the decision myself based on what was said and done. You can critisize me for that, feel free to do so, but it's clear enough by now that the decision to block you has support by most/all other admins on svwp. The duration was too long, no doubt, and for that I'm sorry. The duration would have been reduced if you hadn't made that comment, and the probable decision of lenghtening the block has nothing to do with the template issue but rather the comment about my mental health, this discussion on meta, and the posts on facebook. Adville already made that clear enough I think. If personal issues was of any relevance to how well one fit as an admin, all admins should go through a personal checkup for mental issues, drug issues, etc. But you don't have to do that, because it doesn't matter. What matters is what decisions you make, what edits you make, etc. I'm not perfect, the length of the block was too long, but I'm far from the first admin on Wikipedia to have done a mistake. Skottniss (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Your "mistake", dear Skottniss, may now be used by people who has been mobbing me for years, and without any evidence for a crime, or verification that Im a persons trying to hurt or damage Wikipedia, they may now, fabricate a "swedish Wikipedia consensus" that I shall be blocked permanently. My comment, in regard to you, was question wether you were a suitable admin, after all you wrote about yourself, which you have now deleted, but is being used against me, as a personal attack against you. Im sorry, but I have somewhat difficulties to excuse your mistake, and say very well, there you learned something boy, and clap you on your shoulder, after contributing almost 15 years to this project, and never, ever, trying to destroy it. I was sw Wikipedias first admin ever, until 2007, and I would never have done to you, what you did to me. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


AND skottniss, you did NOT provide a link to a diff where any admin except MagnusA who blocked me a year ago, (for Trollbehavior, according to him.) you can not provide any diff where your block was supported by other admins. Now, its not surprising that you get support, and although it has been confirmed, that I didnt break any rule, when you blocked me, we have afbricated issue of personal attack, which is twisting my words, when I questioned your capacity as admin, citing your own words, which wasnt reall perfect either, for an admin, according to your own description. So, after fabrication of support from other admins, who I remarked already in 2004, are protecting each other, in order to keep power against ordinary users and people, whi qhas been questioning their policy throughout some 10 years now. You, may be a part of that corruption, and enjoy the benefits of protection, regdrless what you did to me. But your mirror will not approve what you did, will not support you. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did write that, not as a personal attack but as an observation of fact based on your behavior. I stand by it 100%. If someone wants to block me for it, Fine. I still stand by it. You attacked an admin for being open about his mental problems, and you obviously don't see anything wrong with that. Fact: You're a bully. Fact: You lack empathy. Fact: You behave like an idiot. So, by all means, tell me what's not true in my assessment of your character. Wikipedia is a place for cooperation, which you are obviously not capable of. Now dozens of people are wasting time discussing you instead of doing real, constructive work on Wikipedia. Entheta (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


I did NOT attack him, I questioned him as admin for his act, blocking me, against the rules, something I have all right to do, and which Adville above confirmed I would have won, later, if my words hadnt been twisted, and deleted and censored. Now everyone can accuse me of anything, and I cant defend myself, because 8-9 relevant comments have been deleted. Dear Entheta, I have cooperated with people for fifteen years now, on SwWp, EnWp, DeWp, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and other projects where I did less than 1 000 edits. Dont blame me, for what other people do. I blame YOU for personal attack, knowing you will not be treated like me, noone will lift a finger against you. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw your diatribe on Facebook. Yes, that thread was deleted because it was an attack. Lots of people reacted. Others reacted when reading the post that you had left on your own Facebook profile. If you read the discussion on SvWiki you'll find that everybody seems to be pretty much in agreement that it was a vicious attack and that that attack is now the basis for the whole discussion about blocking you for a longer period than the original block. That post of yours what I'm basing my opinions on, not on anything else that may have been deleted that I haven't read. And the fact that you don't realize that you crossed the line for civilized behavior by attacking the admins mental health speaks volumes about your character and proves not only your inability to cooperate but also your lack of empathy. That's all I've got to say about this. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with you here. Entheta (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
here and here I have clear support for having done the block, first from a beurocrat and then from Adville/another admin. I have recieved no opposition for the block, although some have mentioned that the length was a bit too much, which I agree with. Again, any admin could have unblocked you, or changed the duration, but noone did. Skottniss (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


Why dont you confirm that I had right to question your quality as admin, (which you above refer to, as not being perfect?, while I, not being admin, is upposed to be that, right? Lick upstairs, and kick down, right, thats the dream society for humans is it, and you will now start to enjoy the possibility to block people futurevise, knowing your collegues will back you up after this? is this the kind of Wikipedia you want to see?

Why dont you confirm that what you wrote about yourself maybe didnt really sound so good for an elected admin, and that is why you have deleted it now? What you wrote about yourself was in fact so extreme, that when I just copied it and citing what you write about yourself on your user page, I am now accused for personal attack!

But, still, I had the right to question you, after you blocked me, without warning, without communication, and with the motivation that Tostarpadius, (who has ben starting endless discussions with me the last week covering three different topics, and MagnusA, who blocked me last year, after I defended a user they blocked for ever, and qustioning the poor leadership of Sw Wikipedia, that was when he blocked me for "Trolling behaviour". Dan Koehl (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Till SwWps byråkrater[edit]

Jag höll på min diskussionssida på att utveckla ett resonemang med historisk länkar etc, när man stängde av min redigeringsmöjlighet till min diskussionssida.

Ett resonemang som beskrev elitistiska utvecklingen på SwWp från 2005, när den första, högeligen produktive användaren blockerades, den Fjättrade Ankan, pga av sin åsikt och liknande, fast han inte förstörde projektet, eller var vandal, han var en av de största bidragstagare vi haft, han startade inte bråket, utan de som krävde någon typ av politisk korrekthet av honom. Han har sedan följts av en lång rad tragiska likartade blockeringar, eller hot om blockeringar om man inte sagt eller gjort ditten eller datten, gjort avbön, gjort "bot och bättring" etc.

Vi lever ju inte på medeltiden, och skulle aldrig acceptera ett sådant här klimat på arbetsplats, varför gör vi det på Wikipedia, kanske för att vi inte vågar annat...?

Men vi räknar 10 år nu, och denna metodik, där blockeringar inte utförs av admins främst för att blocka tonåriga ip adresser som skriver bajs på en artikel, utan det systematiska dämpande av ifrågasättande, det översitteri det innebär att förödmjuka personer, avtvingade att erkänna sin synd, och ödmjukt be om absolution, för att få bidra till projektet kan det tänkas att detta koncept efter 10 år inte kan uppvisa något större positivt resultat?

Att behandla människor såhär, användare som i grunden är engagerade, produktiva och med bästa vilja att projektet utvecklas, men som hamnar i konflikter för att båda tror/anser de har rätt, finns det nya, alternativa lösningar på detta problem, vägar som oprövade inte testats, för detta som pågått i tio års tid, är ju ynkligt bevis på att det knappast är bästa lösningen att befrämja samarbete och respekt för varandra, när ett toppskikt lägger sig som en fruktad maktfaktor? Ingen Gud, polis, statsminister har gett de mest extrema företrädarna för den här typen av hot och straff metoder gentemot mångåriga användare någon som helst rätt till vad som pågått. vad exakt, ger dem rätt att besluta vem som skall få tillgång till detta projekt och inte? har Jimmy wales gjort det?-nej. har Wikimedia foundation gjort det?-nej.

Så vem har gjort det? Jo sedan först Tinget avskaffades, vilket avlöstes av Fötroendekommitten, så besattes detta vacum i generisk beslutsrätt av de antal admins som då fanns, och representerade kollektivets val. Sedan dess har de växt sig så många att vanliga användare inte kan påverka derass tällning längre, de väljer på rutin om varandra, och skyddar sedan varandra mot kollektivet. Kollektivet å sin sida, saknar större samverkan, utan blir lätt som individer offer för diverse maktmissbruk, från admin kollektivet. det hela har närmast utvecklats still en medeltida feodal struktur, där admin har makten, och kollektivet har begränsade möjligheter att påverka. I synnerhet som denna makt av admins, använder likartade metoder som på medeltiden, an bestraffar användare för "fel" åsikter, hotar dem använder blockering som bestraffning etc, allt mot reglerna, men som någon av dem påpekat ovan, de behöver inga regler, de kan och får bryta mot regler, för de har numera en typ av suverän härskar rätt.

Vi skulle lika gärna kunna revoltera och hävda vår rätt som kollektiv att sluta bli hunsade och orättvist behandlade av de som skall stötta och hjälpa oss, och inte hota och bestraffa oss, för att vi inte följer deras vilja.

Kan detta tas upp någonstans, till diskussion, så att folk bättre får inblick i vad jag egentligen pratat om i flera år? Jag anser att ni som byråkrater har en särskild skyldighet att vara observanta på vad denna utveckling de facto lett till, samt om den verkligen gynnar projektet, eller bara maktutövarna som ser sig som lag och ordning, makt och ledare. kan man tänka sig att efter 10 års misslyckande med denna nämnda metodik, söka nya vägar att försöka lösa problem mellan användare, och gynna ett positivt samarbete inom projektet, där alla har lika värde, och någon form av demokrati ändå råder? Dan Koehl (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Demokrati råder inte på Wikipedia och det har aldrig varit så. Släpp det här nu. Du ältar mer än ett decennium gamla saker. /Grillo (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
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 ([[User talk:::Boeing720|talk]]) 21:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with this assessment of Swedish Wikipedia. I don't miss that project. The fact that I was blocked permanently, mainly for alleged COI abuse in image spamming, but after they got rid of me the project kept just about all of hundreds of images I had supplied, is a memory for life in its ridiculousness. And the total absence of conflict resolution correctly noted by Boeing720 speaks for itself. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and its serious[edit]

I agree 100% with this assessment of Swedish Wikipedia per se, without having time to read all of this about Dan Koehl and his antagonists. Based om my experience since 2008, I can safely assume that he has been treated very unfairly by the cabal which omnipotently runs that project.

I don't miss the project. The fact that I was blocked permanently, mainly for alleged COI abuse in image spamming, but after they got rid of me the project kept just about all of hundreds of images I had supplied, is a memory for life in its ridiculousness. And the total absence of conflict resolution correctly noted by Boeing720 above speaks for itself. What more would need to be said about how extremely difficult it is to work there if you're not willing to stomach being bullied for years and years?

Of course, someone neutral should look into the problem. It's very serious. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If one compare English Wikipedia with how Swedish Wikipedia worked around 2009-2011, the difference is of astronomic dimensions. My experiences from Swedish Wikipedia around 2009 and 2010-2011 are very bad. Later have I learned how one of SwWiki's true pioneers became blocked for a whole year, without a reasonable cause. I have a very strong feeling that SwWiki since around 2008, has been ruled by a minority league. A core of administrators and "hang-arounds". They care less for our five pillars, than who is "in" and who is "out". Subjective thoughts in this "core" decides. And anyone else may be blocked or banned. It doesn't surprise me the least if this still is going on. In my opinion SwWiki doesn't just differ from English Wiki, but also from Danish and German Wiki. I'm not the least surprised of how this "SwWiki Core" abuses their power, and some of them stops at nothing, perhaps due to receiving Barnstars from each other.. I must agree with Serge Woodzing here, a neutral and thorough investigation of how Swedish Wikipedia functions and has functioned, really is called for. A such investigation would not be a waste of time. Boeing720 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)