Requests for comment/Swedish Wikipedia blocking policy violation and Administrator abuse2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Closed due to lack of activity. . --MF-W 07:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Wikipedia blocking policy violation and Administrator abuse2[edit]

I claim that users on svwiki has zero, and absolutely no protection at alla, against the small group of admins who govern th en:Swedish Wikipedia. They have no chance whatever, to reach any kind of justice, or NPOV, neither in the the very treatment of them, as in regard to that articles follow usual Policy for Wikipedias. I have more in detail, described this on Requests for comment/Swedish Fork.

Swedish Wikipedia has three burocrats, @Rasmus 28:, @Svensson1: and @Ternarius:, who are are bound by Wikipedia Policy. Bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to remove administrator permissions in certain situations outlined below, but on the Swedish Wikipedia, not one step has been taken to secure, that the Wikipedia Policy is not abused by admins, to my knowledge, not even in a situation when an admin was requested to be investigated for admin abuse. It seems, even, an admin on Swedish Wikipedia CAN NOT be removed, I have been told, the only option, is to vote against the admin, on next election, years later. This gives very little protection, against admin abuse.

Because of Swedish admin @Yger:s unjustified blocking of my user account, I want to share this discussion on svwiki', which is a google translation of the Swedish discussion page to the article sv:Tuppfäktning, Please observe the part posts that are outside the topic, including discussion of admin actions (Swedish: inlägg som ligger utanför ämnet, inklusive diskussion om adm åtgärder) where I get personally attacked using topic totally irrelevant for the discussion, which in my point of view shows how I was personally attacked and harassed, and how unjustified the present blocking is, by the admin Yger, who was involved in the discussion. A short study of the history of the article, also shows, who and when, in reality committed edit wars, which I was also accused of.

Swedish admin Yger was also involved in the discussion about sv:Koldioxid (carbon dioxide) a month ago, when he blocked me again, for two weeks, and where Yger wrote that the article should have a certain angle, which he ment I tried to destroy, while :
The admin @Adville: removed sourced verified content I had submitted 2020-05-11 10:48:54, with citations from a Swedish professor (Gösta Walin) and climate expert, since 40 years, because in Advilles very personal opinion, they didnt fit in the article. Admin Adville 2020-05-14 23:47:42 removed parts in the article about Walin describing him as climate expert, (with comment that he is Professor in oceanography, but only privately engaged in climate, which is A BLATANT LIE!), which had been part of article content since the article was created 2007-11-27 After this, 23:49:28, Admin Adville moved the article about Walin from sv:Gösta Walin (klimatexpert) to sv:Gösta Walin (oceanograf), and claimed he is not a climate expert, like a parody from the Book Animal farm, since the professor, is among Swedens most well-known climate experts, and is still described as climate expert on Wikidata.
(In reality, he removed much more, I cant go into details, the above described should be enough to have an admin on enwiki desysoped in short time)
  • The "sourced verified content" refers to a blog "Klimatupplysningen" (appr Climate Elucidation) which is a debate forum and not a suitable source according to [1] (svwp: Reliable sources).
  • The choice of disambiguation is a pragmatic one, depending on the number of persons/articles which have a common name. The profession is a common choice for disambiguation, where it is clear that the primary profession and relevance for Gösta Walin is that he is professor (now emeritus) in oceanography. The use of Walins area of competence as professor as a disambiguation is non-controversial, but the use of "klimatexpert" is _not_ since there are different opinions on his level of expertice in this area. / Anhn (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge @Anhn:, different opinions presented in Wikipedia articles, should follow NPOV, and an admin, should not simply remove a written verified text, with the motivation, that theres a consensus by hand full of Wikipedians, who based on their their biased opinion, dislike this particular text, because they dont approve the source, but accept much less reliable sources, when it supports their personal idea on which angle a certain article, should have. Wikipedia should unconditional reflect different established views on a subject, and its a No-No, that an admin, dictates 'which angle and view that should be presented as som kind of "Wikipedia-mainstream-view"- Dan Koehl (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of both articles, Tuppfäktning (history) and Koldioxid (history) show that in both cases I also submitted a break of NPOV template, which users simply removed, without a descent discussion. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note how Im being personally attacked for my profession as animal trainer, in this google translation of myuser discussion page, by the the same users, who reported me, and had me blocked by Yger, or blocked me themselves. Throughout y discussions page Im harassed by different users, I report how admins use rollback on my edits on numerous occasions, violating the rules for rollbacks, and the admins on svwiki doesn't lift a finger....

I kindly ask Stewards to look into this issue, as well as more tiring descriptions on Requests for comment/Do something about svwiki and Requests for comment/Swedish Fork, and my report about how I was blocked one year, at Requests for comment/Swedish Wikipedia blocking policy violation and Administrator abuse.

I request to be unblocked, and that the history of my previous blocks gets investigated, and if Im proven innocent, maybe something can be done, to clean my name and my honor, which some people on svwiki, has tried to destroy, in spite of my work on Wikispecies and 3 other Wikimedia chapters, where I have been admin. I was also Swedish Wikipedias first admin, ever from 2002, until some changes started on that section, and reelections was destroyed ny some users, as well as a group of users destroyed my reelection latest reelection application for adminship on Wikidata. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also request that Swedish admins User:Yger, and User:Adville, are removed from their admin rights, and that an investigation regarding the group of admins are using their user rights, against users on the en:Swedish Wikipedia, and if user rights were ever abused by those admins. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through google translation of my user discussion page, I also request User:Andejons to have his admin rights removed, since he has acted in an aggressive mobbing of me throughout many years, and has proven to misuse rollback, and other admin tools, against me, violating the rules for admins. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through google translation of my user discussion page, I also request User:Höstblomma to have their admin rights removed, since they have deleted source-based data that follows the guidelines, as well proven to misuse rollback, and other admin tools, against me, violating the rules for admins. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl, I have never used admin tools or rollback against you. The content I removed was your own comments and not relevant stuff. I did tell you that I considered your discussion tone was a problem and I only went to KAW after you continued in the same way making it impossible to discuss with you. You clearly still hold it against me that I conisdered 4 images of you and the text about your own webpage in the article about elephants was to much and maybe not npov. Höstblomma (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through google translation of my user discussion page, I also request admin User:Anhn to have their admin rights removed, since they have deleted source-based data that follows the guidelines, as well as accusing me of breaking Wikipedia social etiquette, after I repeated those questions to admin Adville, during a time, when I was punished by blocking, and couldn't remind him to answered tose questions elsewhere, than on my user page:

Since 20th of May, not one of Swedish admins has answered those questions!:

...but because you have a dialogue with me @ Adville : , which I appreciate, so I ask you the same questions, which on the side where Im now (because of being blocked) is prevented from writing something , after my report that you have broken violting admin rules (A brilliant way to conjure away a an application of investigation of an admin): But your personal opinions about different sources, and which ones you personally like, or not, are not the focus. what do YOU think about Wikipedia's Policy, Adville? 1. Do you think EVERYONE should follow it? 2. Do you consider that SPECIAL admins should follow policies and guidelines? 3. Do you consider that ALL admins have a responsibility to defend Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in an object and neutral manner where articles reflect different views and where these describe neutrally, as stated in the guidelines that they should do so? 4. Do you think that ALL articles should be NPOV, and not subject to what a handful of people who may share a common political orientation, claiming it is Wikipedia's consensus? You never answered those questions. can you give answers, without altering my questions?

...Not one admin on svwiki, has until today answered those questions, including the above mentioned Swedish admins... Dan Koehl (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Anhn[edit]

Since I am mentioned in the text above, I just acknowledge that I have read the text.

I just want to add that I, Anhn, in fact is one of the admin:s who have responded to DK:s questions about NPOV, the answers are here. They might be hard to find, since the questions are pretty general about basic wikipedia principles, but happened to be on the discussion page for Koldioxid (Carbon Dioxide), but this also shows how an initially reasonably focussed discussion about suitable sources regarding carbon dioxide diverged to questioning my credibility and intentions. Since I was re-elected as admin for my third term recently in july 2020 with 40 votes for and none against it could have been a convenient opportunity for presenting doubts about my adminship. I am one of the admins that in the blocking of DK in may 2020 initially argued for a block no shorter than one year, but changed my mind and went for a 2 week block. DK is not a vandal, he has made valuable contributions on svwp, but we also have to comply to wikipedia guidelines about a healthy community culture. / regards Anhn (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, @Anhn:, more precisely describe my crime, when I asked the above questions in regard to NPOV on my user discussion page, when Adville initiated a dialogue there, and I had no possibility to write anywhere else? What was my crime, asking him how he regarded NPOV, as above described? Is that illegal in svwiki? Becaue this, and not how many votes you had, is the issue described above, that you accused me of breaking breaking Wikipedia social etiquette, and can you link to a rule, that I broke, when I asked an admin about how NPOV should be reinforced on svwiki? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not committed any crime, but you are not following wikipedia guidelines about netiquette. This has been thoroughly discussed, most recently at sv:WP:KAW (swedish discussion page for administrative measures). I will not reiterate it. I have supported a 2-week block, but other persons supports longer block. / Anhn (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand me, @Anhn:, Im relating to your remark on my google translation of my user discussion page, marked 20 May 2020 at 06.25 (CEST) Dan Koehl (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That remark was a clarification that a certain duplicated discussion page was deleted. Discussions may be _moved_ but should not be _duplicated_. Duplication makes it impossible to know where the discussion actually is taking place. This is described here. Anhn (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about the problem with the duplicated discussion page happened in may 2020, and was one of a huge number of actions that really sucked the energy from at least me. However, it ended with a block of 2 weeks, and believe me, I have tried hard not to look back, to forget earlier conflicts, and focus on the current situation. The current block is due to clear violations of netiquette which are documented with diffs at sv:WP:KAW. The blocking is well in line with e.g. Wikimedia foundation board on a healthy community culture. / Anhn (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to, User:Anhn, that the dialogie om my user discussion page, was initiated by admin Adville, and that I politely asked him that question, and had no chance of asking that question anywhere else, since I was blocked? In that sense, can you please develop your opinion about my claimed crime? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You became blocked in May 2020 for a number of reasons, doumented here. I will not reiterate them, but several persons were engaged in the discussion, and the only disagreement was whether the block should be limited to 2 weeks, to 1 year or several years. / Anhn (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also agree to, User:Anhn, that the certain duplicated discussion page, which was you refer to above, is identical with my request which was deleted, was my request of investigation in regard to admin abuse, and that YOU, User:Anhn, deleted my request of investigating weither User:Adville had committed admin abuse, while I was blocked, without any chance to give input? Can you also please, link to the investigation, so everyone can read that investigation, before you deleted it?Dan Koehl (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diff with the deleted discussion thread is here. The retained discussion page is here. (Translation of the thread heading: Sources in scientific articles, explanation and expectations about cooperation). There is a slight difference in that the copied discussion bears an introductory note that it is copied, which (of course) is missing in the original discussion. The "deleted" discussion has it's last contribution 19 maj 2020 kl. 03.17 (CEST), but the retained discussion has one further contribution 19 maj 2020 kl. 09.35 (CEST). There is also a minor contribution, just a few lines, with the heading "Diskussioner på Sidan" which is missing in the retained discussion, but these lines appears not to be related to the main thread, which is about scientific sources.

To conclude - the duplicated discussion was deleted (not by me, not by an admin), but the original thread is kept. / Anhn (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can You also please confirm, User:Anhn, that on Swedish Wikipedia, when a user requests an investigation of admin abuse, it is OK to block him, and then one single user, in this case YOY User:Anhn, can delete the request without actions? I believe your answer may be very interesting for the Stewards, and the Wikimedia Foundation. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The request for investigating of admin abuse for user Adville can be found here. The request was that Adville should behave POV:ish, but the discussion quickly diverged to a heavy discussion about AGW (Antropomorph Global Warming) where DK and Adville has different opinions. Finally we had both admin Adville (!) and DK blocked selectively for editing this very page, because the discussion was clearly off-topic. It could also be considered suitable that DK and Adville due to their involvement in the matter does not participate in investigation of the request. Once contributions from Adville and DK ceased, very few persons had anything to say, and there was no support of doing any actions against Adville.
The request was not (as said above) deleted by me, but I formulated a conclusion that no measures were required. Since no further input was made to the thread, it was moved by a robot 7 days after the latest edit to the archive location. It is hence not deleted, only moved, and anyone can inspect the request and the answers. /Anhn (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry @Anhn:, the page you refer to is a page with opinions, WHERE IS THE INVESTIGATION?? Was there ever an investigation? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OR, @Anhn:, did you follow "The Swedish model", and let 6 persons decide that there was a "consensus", for no need of an investigation? So, an investigation was never done? Is that even possible? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During the period 2020-05-16 and 2020-05-27, when the request was on the WP:KAW, between 600 and 1400 persons viewed this page every day, which can be compared with an average of 71/day for the whole of 2019. This shows that several persons have viewed the investigation, and if anyone had any objections they could have given their view.
So, on the Swedish Wikipedia, if no one dares to to ask for that an application for investigation is performed, there will be no investigation, and if no one have an objection, a reuquest is simply deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The request for actions against Adville consists of 36k text - that is an investigation. There are thorough discussions and lots of arguments. Approximately 10 persons have participated in the discussion, and the only one that has an objection is DK. The request is not deleted, but the conclusion is that Adville has done nothing wrong. / Anhn (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This accusation against Adville about POV simply has no evidence, neither any support. And he has not used any administrative actions with the pages that were mentioned in the request. / Anhn (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HOW was this investigated? or is it your opinion, or a "consensus"? How could I contribute with diffs? Can you describe this evidence? Where can the claimed evidence be seen? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the investigation _is_ the discussion on WP:KAW. It lasted for 4 days, appr 10 persons participated, unusually many persons (> 500/day) viewed the discussion page. There has been ample of opportunities to contribute to the investigation. Your request did not contain any diffs or any solid evidence, just vague accusations of POV. Your request asked for "att be kollektivet kontrollera förfarandet, samt ge ett utlåtande kring om ni answer att det är så här Wikipedia ska fungera" / "asked the community to check the doings, and give a statement about if this is how Wikipedia should work". The community has made their statement, the process and discussion in Koldioxid is Ok. In this case it is to mention in the article that according to a scientific source appr 97 % of published research endorses the scientific consensus on AGW, and hence it is mentioned that 3 % does not endorse AGW. This is wikipedia consensus, that minority opinions are mentioned but not given a non-proportional exposure. / Anhn (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that link you provide is not an investigation about what I requested should be investigated, its 4 days when people discuss me, general opinions, etc. Its no investigation at all. In order to assist you, I now mark above with yellow color, what Adville did, and add it below, marked in yellow.
The admin @Adville: removed sourced verified content I had submitted 2020-05-11 10:48:54, with citations from a Swedish professor (Gösta Walin) and climate expert, since 40 years, because in Advilles very personal opinion, they didnt fit in the article. Admin Adville 2020-05-14 23:47:42 removed parts in the article about Walin describing him as climate expert, (with comment that he is Professor in oceanography, but only privately engaged in climate, which is A BLATANT LIE!), which had been part of article content since the article was created 2007-11-27 After this, 23:49:28, Admin Adville moved the article about Walin from sv:Gösta Walin (klimatexpert) to sv:Gösta Walin (oceanograf), and claimed he is not a climate expert, like a parody from the Book Animal farm, since the professor, is among Swedens most well-known climate experts, and is still described as climate expert on Wikidata.
(In reality, he removed much more, I cant go into details, the above described should be enough to have an admin on enwiki desysoped in short time)

This Anhn, is not impressing, talking bla-bla during four days, discussing me, and how I am, and bla-bla, neglecting to investigate what I requested, (see above) and then you Anhn closed the discussion, after a voting?? (where is the voting?) that Adville did nothing wrong, although any reader following the links above, can see how he has been manipulating the pages.

Probably a child can see how he has behaved? And since you are all defending this behaviour from an admin, it bring guilt to you all!

  • Now we know that the discussion about Adville "is not impressing, talking bla-bla during four days". It is also claimed that "a child can see how he has behaved" so we who do not agree with the accusations are probably blind. It can also be that we are not blind, but that we are not convinced by the accusation, and that we consider the "4-day investigation" as a thorough discussion and not "bla-bla". / Anhn (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why this is admin abuse, Anhn, is very easy to explain: If an admin abuse the entire Wikipedia Policy like this, and then acuse me of POV, and forbid me to put back the text, it is simply admin abuse. Except for blocking persons, theres not anything more abusing an admin can do, then behave like this. And NOT ONE PERSON INVESTIGATED the described admin-POV acts, which every thinking persons with eyes can see, if you follow the links! Dan Koehl (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Adville[edit]

I have seen This, because I was pinged. Just to inform the people reading this. I Will ’’not answer’’ any questions from DK because he seems to try to missunderstand everything I write even of I was the one This Time trying to call everything down to avoid a long block. Adville (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Adville:, does this answer also apply to the above specified question how you regard NPOV on svwiki, which you have not answered since 20th of may, when I for the first time ever, reported You as admin abuse on svwiki, a report which somehow just got deleted, so now everyone on svwiki knows that its useless to report admin abuse, since it just get deleted? Do you think I sometimes felt despair, and felt misunderstood, when I requested that svwiki follows five pillars, and NPOV, and got repeatedly blocked, by admins who violated the rules for how an admin should work? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The report on admin abuse was _not_ deleted - it is here. It has been thoroughly discussed, and no evidence of admin abuse have been found. / Anhn (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also I was just 10 days ago again voted to proceed as admin, as you Can see here. One vote against. DK did not vote, But had the posibility if he does not agree with how I use the rights. Adville (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is, sa far as I can see, not an answer to the above question, Adville? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about a suicide 2016[edit]

On my discussion page, you wrote some hours ago: The thing many apologized for was that they did not understand why he was obsessed in the article "sucide methods" just before it happened, that we did not see the signals..
So I ask you @Adville:, when you claim to interpret other users comment on a dead young mans user page with the words,: The thing many apologized for was that they did not understand why he was obsessed in the article "sucide methods" just before it happened, that we did not see the signals..

If this is really true what you claim,( I can only read two messages, not many), how do YOU translate into English the following sentences, and how are they compatible with your version @Adville:: (I hope that you are not even lying, about what is written on a dead users talk page?)

1. Ditt frånfälle stämmer till eftertanke om det var det rådande klimatet på Wikipedia som har påverkat din hälsa så pass negativt att det bidragit till din bortgång. Det stämmer också till eftertanke om det rådande klimatet på Wikipedia. Hur kan vi få veta hur svwikipedianer upplever det? Går det att göra det bättre? Vila i frid, ?

2. Förlåt Obelix för att jag en gång varit hård mot dig, men den gången visste jag inte vem du var. Först när jag såg din bild på din användarsida upptäckte jag till min stora förvåning att du är mycket lik mitt barnbarn, ni är födda samma år och har båda Aspergers syndrom. Sen dess har jag följt dig lite på sidan om, velat be om ursäkt men det blev inte av, först nu vill jag uppriktigt be dig om förlåtelse och du kommer alltid att finnas kvar i mina tankar

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am asking, is because one of the above mentioned admins are mentioned, in email correspondence I have, regarding this young man. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know you are not my english teacher, so why Do you Ask me to translate 2 persons view (and not everybody elses), when it was no problem to use Google several Times before on This page? (No you do not have ro answer that). You do not have to ping me every Time you mention me. I know how to use ”bevakningslistan”. And I still think it is disgusting of you to use a dess friend of mine as some kind of weapon against me and the svwp (for some strange reason). I do not understand why you did not go to the Swedish police 2017 and reported this, of We had done something. It seems like you are not felinformerad very well right now, and maybe you should take a little break for a couper of hours to reflect and calm down. You have been very activ accusing everyone now. Let others read and maybe reply. Adville (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone, @Adville:, only a certain number of admins, and I have provided links ans diffs, so people can comprehend, and understand why I do it. I never claimed to be an English teacher, but what I read above, is not really what you wrote on my user page, when you claimed what the person wrote. By far, I read something completely different, than what you claim. So I gave you a straight question, like I did 20th of May, regarding how you view NPOV on svwiki, which you have refused to answer, since, and also now, as far as I can see. Just to make sure, @Adville:, are you the very same person, who is an admin on svwiki? Responsible for that rules are followed, that NPOV is defended, that the svwiki is politically neutral, and that users are protected against mobbing, and hounding, as a few examples what admins should work against. Is this You, Adville? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example how the user was treated, from Dan Koehls dialogue with the user:

Question 1. from User:Dan Koehl to XX:

XX, User:Yger and User:MagnusA are deleting your comments, User:MagnusA claim you gave them permission to do this, is it true, have you given them permission, is it correct? Dan Koehl 6 februari 2015 09.59 (CET)

XX answer 1:
as you can read above (under the header de-blocking) I was blocked by User:MagnusA after my comments on sv:Wikipedia:Begäran om åtgärder (Swedish variety for Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention). I dont know if I gave permission, but like I said above,, I have nothing against it, since it lead to irritation, and like I said blocking. XX 6 februari 2015 10.03

(intervention by User:MagnusA, who seem to have observed our dialogue)
"They may be deleted, you wrote..." MagnusA 6 februari 2015 10.05 (CET)

XX answer 2:
Yes, I have nothing against it, like I wrote. If that should be regarded as a permission, I guess is not necessary issue to discuss.. XX 6 februari 2015 kl. 10.11 (CET)

Question 2 from User:Dan Koehl to XX:

OK, I understand, Do I interpret you correct, that you have been forced to accept that other users delete your words in discussions, otherwise you may be blocked? I read your input, and could not see any threat against Wikipedia, or any rules in your comments. Its new for me, that admins delete other users comments. Dan Koehl 6 februari 2015 10.16

XX answer 3:
I have a snare around my neck, with constant risk of being blocked at any small error or false step, see [User:XX/conditions for participation] for background information. I rather see my comments deleted if they are disturbing the "peace", rather than I get expelled from Wikipedia again. All well! XX 6 februari 2015 10.25

User:Dan Koehls reply to XX:

I think I understand. I can not see any errors or bad actions in your comments, or that they should violate any rule. But in the past it was violations against the rules to delete other users comments. If an admin did it it was considered admin abuse. I just wanted to know, what was the issue in this case and if there was a risk of admin abuse...[more text]... Dan Koehl 6 februari 2015 11.16

The file [User:XX/conditions for participation] has since been deleted on svwiki, obviously it regulated conditions the user must follow, to avoid punishment.

Short time before his death.

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the second Time, Dan. Please stop pinging me on This page. It is just tiresome. I do follow This page. Adville (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, you weren't blocked in an attempt to silence you, you were blocked due to your aggressive style of discussion. No one owns the articles he or she has edited, yet any attempt to change anything you has added in an article will risk a violent reaction from you should you not like the change, with accusations of censorship, political bias, attacks against your personal honour etc. Your latest attempt, using a troubled young man's suicide to attack one of your enemies, is too low to be commented. / Ternarius (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is however, no evidence to this, and has not been balanced into a perspective, that the user who reported me and had me blocked, has made numerous comments in discussion pages and on my user discussion page, accusing me for far worse things, and I accuse you of representing a forked Wikipedia, where normal ethics and NPOV is not followed, and being violated. Under such conditions, you can accuse me of various things, while I cant even defend myself, or point out that the judgement about my person, has not been analyzed by a neutral independent tool like conflict resolution etc, but simply by letting 5 people give their opinion, in a pseudo-ethical way. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There _is_ evidence for the reasons for your current blocking. They are documented with diff:s in the KAW-request. About 10 persons have participated in the discussion and more than 500 persons have viewed the discussion. The diff:s is the evidence, regardless of who has reported them. /Anhn (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is svwp a lynching mob?[edit]

I do appreciate your reply, @Anhn:, and would like to take the opportunity to ask, when you read the description of article en:Lynching, can you in detail describe HOW it differed from my blocking, and please also add, how the number of people witnessing the hanging of a person during a medieval Lynching, could be considered, an evidence for the persons guilt? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl Of course not. An angry mob crying for blood (quite frankly) does not constitute any sort of evidence. AnotherEditor144 t - c 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer anhn[edit]

I have not answered this question so far, and have now decided _not_ to do it. I will just comment that if svwp is a lynching mob I am not in a position to answer the question, since I then am a part of the mob and hence have conflicts of interest. / Anhn (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for translating svwp discussion about the blocking of Dan Koehl 2020-07[edit]

Im also afraid that very few readers understand Swedish @Anhn:,, so since this is the very point to my present block (among a number of more blocks lately) would you be kind, since you consider this as evidence to translate the diffs, and how the "investigation" came to a conclusion that this is an evidence? By all means, feel free to describe how an "investigation" is performed on the sv wiki, and please dont forget to clearly add the "evidence" with translations into English? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer anhn[edit]

First I want to say: The problems this time (and previous times) is not how it starts - it is that it goes on and on. It may (like this time about svwp Tuppfäktning (cock fighting) start on the talk-page of the article. The discussion is then taken to other pages where the original arguments are re-iterated, finally it comes to WP:KAW (svwp administrative discussion page). And then the discussion has moved out from svwp (since DK is blocked) and now it is here on meta. And even on this page it can be seen that it is not easy to come to any sort of consensus or conclusion, and sometimes divergent matters are introduced which makes it even more difficult to conclude.

Below I translate the conclusions/justification of the blocking for 2 weeks of DK (until 2020-08-10), and below that I have copied the diffs which were the initiation of the blocking process, and translated the comments enclosing the diffs. I have not translated the diffs - I simply don't have the energy to do that.

The opinions, justifications etc below are formulated in a consensus where approximately 10 persons participated. Most were admins, but at least two non-admins participated. The only disagreement were whether the blocking should be 2 weeks or a longer period, where we then went for the shorter period. I personally agree to the content below, but I am not alone. / Anhn (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant, is that this was a two weeks block, which we call a cool-off block. Ie after a discussion is getting out of hand with long intensive entries, that often falls outside the issue. A cool off period give all involved a possibility to come back with more constructive and balanced entries.Yger (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

justification of the blocking[edit]

Motivering till tvåveckorsblockeringen: / Justification for the 2-week block

  • redigerar frekvent med starkt intressekonflikt, vilket gett innehåll med POV och OVIKT / editing frequently with strong conflicts of interest, which have produced content with POV and unbalanced content
  • bryter mot grundregeln att Wikipedia utvecklar vi tillsammans, genom att vägra ta in andras synpunkter och diskutera på ett balanserat sätt, inklusive att redigeringskriga / breaks the basic rule that Wikipedia is developed together with other editors, since DK refuse to accept other views and discuss in a balanced way, and perform edit war

Diffs which are the basis for the decision[edit]

1. Anklagelse om ägarskap av artiklar, här / Accusation of ownership of articles

2. Anklagelser om politisk agenda/djurrättsaktivism/pseudovetenskap här, här, här / Accusation of hidden political agendas / Animal Rights activism / pseudo science

3. Nedvärderande av person/hån/oseriösa demonstrativa svar här, här, här, här / Disrespectful treatment of a person / ridicule / demonstrative and non-serious answers

4. Antydande om att vara utsatt för konspiration här / suggesting being the target of a conspiracy

5. Förvanskande av fakta efter eget huvud/envis vägran att acceptera fullgoda källor - diskussion blir omöjlig här, här och här / distortion of facts according to personal views / stubborn refusal to accept sources deemed as reliable according to ( the svwp-version of ) which makes a discussion impossible

6. Beteendet av DK börjar även inverka på ett skadligt sätt på artiklar, här / the behaviour of DK is having a bad impact upon articles (the diff includes a clearly demonstrative and non-encyclopedic edit)

See also[edit]

Similar discussions (certain items re-iterated) initiated by DK are going on at