Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Do something about svwiki

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. The request is inactive since August 2020 and obviously going nowhere. Marking as closed. --MF-W 17:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal edit

Please check the actions of the Swedish Wikipedia administrators for compliance with the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation, eg how the Policy and NPOV is followed.

Discussions about Dan Koehl on svwikis administration page edit

Interestingly, short time after Swedish burocrat user:Ternarius, referred to the previous discussions about me as a modern witch-hunt (modern häxprocess), resulting in admin @Yger: blocking me a month ago,

My latest blocking edit

here admin Yger blocks me with the motivation that I have broken consensus and committed edit wars.

What I did: I was working on the article sv:Tuppfäktning (cockfighting), improving its quality with verified sources, and also submitted a fact box template 2020-07-27 12:30:33, worked more and submitted more content, when I see the fact-box was suddenly removed 2020-07-27 12:38:35, and I submitted the fact-box + content again 2020-07-27 12:40:14, adding the info, that this specific day I was requested on my user page to add fact-boxes, within a scope called this months mission, where adding fact-boxes in missing articles is the topic of the month (see uppdrag).

While Im editing the article more, another user remove the fact-box again 2020-07-27 13:19:40, and I added more info, and added the factbox again 2020-07-27 13:34:31, with the remark that fact-boxes has been used on svwiki since 2004, when I added the first one, ever.

(Wrong, in fact I added the very first fact-box on svwiki already 2002-12-14 20:29:01)

And then I was blocked.

I was not doing edit wars, I added fact-box, AND a lot of information in article, that before I found it since it was classified as crime in Sweden (no verification of any court case), and I was very busy researching and adding info, when two other users, who for some reason did not like a fact-box in that specific article, removed it, but they did not add any content to the article, so THEY did edit-war.

There is to my knowledge, no consensus against submitting fact-box templates, and if a majority of Wikipedia user has anything against fact-boxes in specific articles, this could be discussed later, and not be "used" as a reason to block someone. There was no harm done with the template, nothing copyright infringing, nothing offending.

=I did not commit edit wars, it was another user, Whos only input was removing the fact-box, while I was in large amounts enriching the article with verified content. There is NO consensus, against using fact-boxes. If 2-3 persons, for whatever reasons, did not want a fact-box in that specific article, this should be brought up on another level, where I have a chance to give my opinion.

The people voting that I should be blocked for breaking a consensus, themselves have problems of finding it... So, I am presently blocked, and and user wants me permanently blocked, for something they dont know where it is, and at the same time, accuse me of breaking the non-existing block, which I never heard of, and they cant not locate. The admin who blocked me, has also accused of breaking a future rule (den kommande Terms of Use/Code of Conduct), which I never heard of, and doesnt seem to exist. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While many of us trust the admin @Yger:s judgement on admin matters, I remind you that volunteers are people who donate their time and skills to Wikimedia projects and should be treated respectfully. Several volunteers has left after Ygers actions, and this clearly indicates that there is a problem in communication between Yger and the community. here below, Yger has not given any diffs, as to how, and when I broke any certain rules, and as described above, is also accusing me of breaking future rules, still not even existing, which does not really provide a valid reason for my blocking, why I personally, after being admin on 4 projects, bureaucrat on one, serving as admin far longer than Yger, consider that my blocking should be removed, since it was done, in an abusive way of misusing admin rights by Yger. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issues in July 2020 edit

I am once again blocked by @Yger: two weeks on Swedish Wikipedia, where other users made edit war with me regarding that i Submitted a fact box template, made for sports on the page about cock fighting at sv:Tuppfäktning, which has in its first line in the intro been described as a sport since the article was created in 2004, and it is described as a sport enwiki, dewiki, and other wikis, while now, after I was blocked, my sourced content, which in detail described how a sport is defined, (rules, gambling, organization etc.) has been removed, and editors claim there is some sort of discussion if it should be defined as sport. In those discussions, I have mentioned being a professional animal keeper since 50 years, and that I have been teaching about animal welfare, and its laws, as teacher, but I have never used that, or myself as a source. I have no opinion about cock-fighting, but Im highly concerned that an article should present verified facts, and not be written with weight, from animal rights POV, especially since animal rights, differ from animal welfare. using a block against a contributing user, on request from an opponent in discussion, is clearly against Wikipedia rules, and not providing evidence that I should have broken against any rule on svwiki, by a consensus, where there is a high indication that the blocking has been used as punishment for something unspecified, is also against Wikipedia rules and policy. The same admin who blocked me, also blocked me two weeks at 2nd of June, with claimed motivation to give other contributors peace to work, and after my blocking, some of my verified content was removed, so the readers could not get knowledge about a different POV, than stated in articles.

The admin who blocked me, refuses to motivate why I was blocked, but claim there is a consensus against templates on svwiki, which is not true, I have never read about this consensus, and oddly enough, I was blocked for submitting the template, about one hour, after I, on my user discussion page, I was requested to submit templates in articles, from the admin at the project of This months mission. Please also observe, that the last time I was blocked, my formal request that admin abuse and abuse of NPOV should be investigated, on svwiki, was simply removed. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can read, I have over the last days submitted sourced content into the article, which seemingly is disturbing some users, who may have a political agenda, and dont want cockfighting to be described as a sport, although it has been since 2004, and is widely known as such. The Swedish Wikipedia is seemingly becoming more end more politically extreme, where users wo submit sourced content, which is not in the taste of others, use blocking as a method of controlling the content in articles,. I view this as a severe crime against the five pillars, the policy of Wikipedia, and abuse of admin rights. Please look into whats going on at svwiki. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this, it has been insinuated, by at least two users, that I (and then probably my colleges) are performing crimes of cruelty against animals, on the discussion page of cock fighting. Furthermore, Im accused of various things at the swedish Adminstrators board where all the humiliations against me, are totally neglected, while Im presented as a person, trying to disrupt Wikipedia, when Im fighting for rules and policies to be followed. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time Im being blocked by an admin, involved in the discussion. My 50 year professional animal keeper, and the fact I have been teaching animal welfare in schools has been ridiculed, it has been questioned if cockfighting is a sport, although the article has declared this since 2004. Motivation of my blocking has been to create "peace and quiet", which means that users with a political agenda, now can politicise the article according to their wish, without objections, this is breaking the NPOV policy. Again.Dan Koehl (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In both latest instances, the blocking admin was @Yger:. And in both instances, my behaviour was the official reason, with no evidence, only "consensus". In both instances, after I tried to enforce a better NPOV into articles, and was attacked by users who wanted the articles to be presented in a special way, so the controversy character is hidden, and censored for readers, who are now only presented one version, where theres two versions. In both cases, after I was blocked, the articles underwent an intensive "cleaning", where verified sourced content, was removed, until the readers were presented, what the creators of the "consensus" wanted them to read. = biased propaganda.

Statement of the issues in June 2020 edit

Dear @Rschen7754:, since Im blocked again, I renew the issue again, above. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A metawiki and wikicommons admin Billinghurst states the following: "Turkish Wikipedia is a self-managing community. Stewards have no authority to intervene, it is not their role. Your only means for resolution is with that community.". Here is the permanent link of the citation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst&diff=prev&oldid=18188719 . Camouflaged Mirage a meta admin, member of the Small Wiki monitoring team, similarly says "Meta is not appeal court". Here is the permanent link of his speech: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_comment/Meta_admin_~riley_is_abusing_power&diff=prev&oldid=20014094

I made similar cases like yours but I was dismissed everytime but on the other hand, META did not refrain from acting like a Global Arbitration committe when it came to AZwiki: an admin from AZwiki (Cekli829) was de-moted as a result of meta-discussion. Which means, you never know, sometimes meta may act like a Global Arbitration Committee and sometimes they may dismiss you. What does it depend on? I could explain but then that would land me problem... --Ruhubelent (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from admin on sv wp edit

The july issue was discussed on our page for conflict resolution and was started with a number on diffs. After a discussion with several involved, all proposing at least a two weeks block, and more conflicting edits from Dan I made a two weeks block. I stated the reason as

  • edit frequently in conflict of interest creating content with POV and ("unbalanced content")
  • does not respect consensus and does not discuss input from other serious editors, and create edit wars
  • have an aggressive and provocative style of discussion in violation with our etiquette

Dan is a very qualified Wikipedia editor and create a lot of good stuff, but that does not give him the right to work in contradiction to our guidelines.Yger (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue about a few persons and Koehl.When an issue is discussed on KAW (link above) all active users are involved by reading and often commenting. Therefor the best way for you all to get a better picture of this is to use google translated. We have already discussed it too many times. I was not involved in the article discussion I only tied to write to DK to calm down. If you think some people tries to make you blocked the worst thing to do is to be aggressive and attack, I told him. No matter what, only discuss the subject. When he does not listen on that but still user an aggressive and from above discussion style over and over again when someone edits in an article he "owns", then it destroys too much. So this is not about cockfighting and this is a dessicion made by svwp. I will not give you a lot of diffs. But let you translated everything your selfies. Do not forget his talk page. (Also admin on svwp) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adville (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is already hard to get people to read statements about a wiki they don't edit, much less run back and forth to Google Translate for tons of diffs. If you can provide a few (just enough to make your case) along with translations it would be helpful. --Rschen7754 06:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rs, sorry. I understand that. The problem is that this issue has been going on a couple of years. To give a few diffs on the last one does not give you the whole picture. Also we are pretty tired of it. Instead of understanding we are blocking because of missconduct (from the one year block that I did after a KAW which you can find somewhere here on meta too until now) DK always is trying to say it is because of POV from our side and some kind of conspiration theory that we admins sits on IRC and discuss and makes our discissions. That is not true, which I guess you understands if you look at the beginning of the KAW (started because we admins where not agreeing really if it was a correct meassure done or not by locking the article. I thougt a partial block of DK and the other persons would be better so others could discuss calmly). Noone stands above the policy of not being rude on svwp. Here are two posts I wrote to Dan in this the last case before the block:
  • "Dan Koehl, antar det är mitt inlägg du menar. Eftersom du anser du har ett par fiender som gör allt för att få dig blockerad så finns det två möjliga strategier för dig: 1. Kör på som vanligt och ta på dig offerkoftan; 2. Försök lyssna på oss som inte vill få dig permanentblockerad och lugna ner din debattstil så du inte matar dessa användare som du anser är mot dig. Jag hoppades att förra blockeringen skulle få dig att gå mer mot 2, men du verkar vilja uppehålla dig vid 1. Det gör det svårare och svårare att försvara dig när du så ofta gör övertramp (även om du ibland blir provocerad). Snälla, försök dämpa din debattstil så får du igenom mer och både du och alla andra mår bättre. MVH Adville (diskussion) 26 juli 2020 kl. 21.06 (CEST)"
  • "Dan, hoppas du inte missförstod mig. Jag försökte tipsa dig om att lugna ner dig i debatterna för att du just skall kunna förbättra artiklar som du vill. Även om man känner sig uthängd så gäller det att kallt hålla sig till ämnet. Då blir det lättare för "oss andra" att kunna säga till de som du anser hetsar dig. Detta i all välmening. För jag försöker få fram att det inte skall bli någon lång blockering. MVH Adville (diskussion) 26 juli 2020 kl. 22.14 (CEST)"
If you use translate I think you understand the core of what I think in this case. Br Adville (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin @Adville:, if you argue with admin @Yger: about for which reasons I am blocked, which he stated here below, Its more helpful if you describe your alternative to why admin Yger blocked me, describing what crime I did, and give links to when I have broken a rule on svwiki, pasting text where you are threatening me above, doesnt really help a reader, why I was blocked. can also @Yger: confirm, that the official reasons for my block below are wrong, and that Admin Adville knows better, why I was blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well there are serveras reasons, and I am focusing on one... the most important for me because it is the same as the last times. I did not threaten you. And I Will not proceed discussing here with you. The discussion on svwp was clear and I stand behind it. This is Very complex and you know that too. You also know I tried to help you not be blocked, But in-areas of Calming down You speeded up. Im sorry, But by doing so I Can not help you. (Same when both you and I became partially blocked on CO2 article. And I accepted it. You instead did vice verse and finalLy got a 2 week ban. It is not helping you. You are not immune because you helped to start svwp long time ago. I Will not Argue with you here. Br Adville (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I dont know , and you are supposed to explain for other people not involved, so its better if you clearify this. Which issue are you then focusing on, and can you give a link, and a translation, to where I have broken a rule, and which rule, admin @Adville:? I claim you are threatening me in the text above. I also claim I had no warning before I was blocked, I also claim, there is no consensus, which has been mentioned, so I can not be regarded as guilty, of breaking a consensus. Can you please be concise, if You have a second opinion to why I was blocked, in conflict with admin @Yger: please give links and descriptions. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand why, I am sorry. It has been explained to you every time you have been blocked lately. It is not about this only time. So no. I will not get into this again. I was not involved in the cockfight-discussion, but tried to calm things down. Thats why I gave my support to Yger here, because calming it down did not work. This is an issue for svwp, and we solved it there. Anyone who wants to act are free to do so from this page and ask... but they have to do the research themself, because we are tired on svwp to always come in conflicts with you. It takes too much energy from all of us... they know where to look! Adville (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adville:, you are supposed to explain for the readers of this page,who doesnt speak Swedish. If you argue the reasons I was blocked, you are supposed to explain this in a way so a reader of this page can understand. I can understand it tiring, if you are getting problems when you break policys and rules for how a Wikipedia should work and be administered, and if you are creating a Wikipedia fork, and if you dont respect NPOV, and as admin dont answer my questions regarding NPOV on the svwiki, you should at least be prepared that some old users may be against this. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated: I have explained. And you know what policies we say you break. Therefor no need to proceed. Cherrypicking sources (CO2-discussion) and so on is not according to wiki-policies, for example. That is against NPOV (what I know, but I did not start svwp and have to follow the policies whitout any discussion ;-) ) Now I will work. Wellcome back in two weeks. I have tried to help you to not be blocked, in vain. Please when you come back focus on the subjects. Do not attack other users, do not write "I know this because I am an expert in the subject... give sources, do not incinuate things about others... Becuse I want you to not be long term blocked, but if you do not try to be polite and focus on the subjects and sources it is hard. Br Adville (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont lie about me here admin@Adville:, please explain for english speaking readers of this page, present links that verify, that I should have broken any rules. After 30 minutes, you have not presented anything, that helps an independent reader to understand why I am blocked now.Dan Koehl (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from dan Koehl against Accusations from admin on sv wp edit

Regardless what 8 people vote, what right does the Swedish admin have, to work against the entire Wikipedia Policy? Why do you do that, with what right are you creating a fork, and who on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, gave you that right? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is evidence that I do discuss (cockfighting), (in reality contrary to what Swedish admin Yger claim above, from 23 juli 2020 kl. 17.42 (CEST) until 27 juli 2020, when I was blocked, and had no chance to reply), and for anyone who use google translate, it should be easy to see, and identify, WHO is making aggressive replies and defamatory statement, where I in the end have to defend myself and my profession, by mentioning that I may bring the accusations to lawyer. WHY was not those people blocked, or stopped? Why are YOU lying abut me @Yger:? especially when I, since I started contribute in september 2002, always used my real name, contrary to you, and the people who accused of different things, on that discussion, because I was fighting to make the article more NPOV?. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The worse defamatory statements about my person, has been hidden by a box, where you see the header inlägg som ligger utanför ämnet, inklusive diskussion om adm åtgärder, where totally off topic things are brought into the discussion, with accusations about how I train elephants, where another user, Ascilto, paste a picture with me and elephants, although the article we were discussing, was about cock fighting. The Swedish admins didnt lift a finger, didnt block anyone who attacked me personally. How can you lie like this on Meta, @Yger: and why didnt you block users who attacked me personally, instead of focus on the true topic of the discussion?

1. Accusation of does not discuss input from other serious editors:

You did not discuss input from other users, you mocked them and ignored them. You accused me for being a activist fighting for animal rights. I am not. Other users you accused of owership of articles or of being born in a wood. Höstblomma (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, accusations @Höstblomma:, Please link to where I 1. :did not discuss and provide a link to where I 2. mocked someone, or where I 3. accused you of being an activist fighting for animal rights? (afterwards, I may present some links, of legal importance) Dan Koehl (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have all the links you asked for at svwp KAW, here. Höstblomma (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Accusation of create edit wars: (what is create edit wars?? Either you commit edit wars, but how do you cretae them? Is this a mnapulative way of maing me guilty of other users edit wars??) I cant understand that expression, but anyhow,

...and then I was blocked. How did I work against any policy, by inserting a factbox, after I had contributed a lot of verified sourced information?

If you compare this version where I have described history, and why its defined as sport, with this version before I started working the article, HOW can I be accused of abusing Wikipedia, and being blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine user who now are satisfied with the intro of the article, without the template Infobox sport. Cockfighting is controversial in some cases, and not totally uncontroversial, like you wanted it to be described. Höstblomma (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. Accusation of does not respect consensus (WHICH consensus, is there a consensus on not putting factboxes into articles?)

  • may I ask, where is the evidence for this? I was busy editing, and researching the net, in order to improve the article, and during ten minutes 2-3 users may have had objections, but WHERE IS THE CONSENSUS, Please link to the consensus, Im accused of breaking? How many participated in this claimed consensus? How many minutes old was that claimed consensus active and well-known, before I was blocked for breaking it? And also, in what way did I have a chance of participating in an official consensus discussion, if Im accusing to break it? IF there is an evidence of consensus, HOW old was it, when I was blocked? 10 minutes? Does any other Wikipedia block a user who contributed 19 years, with claim of consensus, after ten minutes editing? You are lying also on this point @Yger:!

Please, point me to the link about a consensus against using factboxes? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See answer above, for example. Höstblomma (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its important for readers of this page, to have some kind of link to follow, in order to check you accusation, @Höstblomma:. YOU requested me to get blocked, and now you claim a consensus, please provide a link to that consensus, so we all can read about what I am accused of breaking. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check the discussion page of the article for consensus about the intro. Höstblomma (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Since I am blocked for the accusation of neglecting a consensus, How old was that consensus when I got blocked, made by how many users, how did I get an invitaion to a consensus discussion, @Höstblomma:?Its important for readers of this page, to have some kind of link to follow, in order to check you accusation, @Höstblomma:. YOU requested me to get blocked, and now you claim a consensus, please provide a link to that consensus, so we all can read about what I am accused of breaking. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Accusation about aggressive and provocative style of discussion

  • Where in this discussion have I been aggressive? So agrressive that it motivates me being blocked for 2 weeks, after @Höstblomma:, an opponent who wanted the article to be be more animal rights activist influenced asked that I should be blocked, and where have I been more provocative than users who claimed I dont train animals well? Evidence, please, @Yger: I think you are lying also on this point, and I find it highly incorrect to use blocking against a user when there was different points of views in how the article should be presented, where I contributed with sourced content, and my opponent, only gave opinions in the discussion! Dan Koehl (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See examples in the case here. Höstblomma (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a help for readers of this page, @Höstblomma:, if you can provide links and translations to back up your accusations? Im sure you are willing to this, consider the fact you got me blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here, your answer to Nordelch, in english: Thank you so much, I really value that you give me this permission, and i look forward edit this article, do you own it?, here, in english: Your political attempts does not manage Wikipedia rules. Give up. It dosen´t matter how many consensus that is lined up. The definition of how elephants live in zoos is not capitivity. They are tame animals, like a cat or dog, does not live in captivity. Take politics about animals elsewhere, and here, in english: Do you by the case live in capitvity yourself? Or are you born in a wood? Do you know if you are domesticated, or not? Should you be set free?, and here, in english, suggestion to start categories like "crimes on sundays", "crimes in the subconscious", and "crimes on public toiletts at dusk", just because cockfighting was in a subcategory to category crime. This, and more like this, for several days, is why you was blocked. Höstblomma (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captivity is not exactly as the Swedish term fångenskap so the translation is not correct. The word fångenskap in Swedish goes to sv:Frihetsberövande i Sverige a term for a human prisoner. You wanted this term to be applied for a zoo animal, which is not relevant, even if some people regard a zoo a prison, this is not an established definition of a zoo, and you tried during several days tp push through under what header an article I wrote should be located at, and in spite of your daily pressure, with help of other people, who were more willing to compromise, it is now located at sv:Elefanten och människan. I also want to point out that the English term captivity, which you now falsely used as translation for the swedish word FÅNGENSKAP, in regard of elephants is very different from fångenskap, and for example in South Africa, the term captivity for elephants, is applied for a fenced area where elephants roam over several square kilometers.
  • Where is my accusation? I notice you only pick parts from the dialogue, not the beginning.

Im trying to understand, what rule I have broken? Just because Im a professional zookeeper and animal trainer since 50 years, as well as teacher in animal welfare, and argue for important differences in definitions, which may not be in everyones taste, but is based on scientific sources, this can hardly be reason to block me? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your descpription of the words and translations is just not true. Check dictionaries. On svwp "fångenskap" happens to be a redirect, but a redirect on svwp is not the defintion of the word. This redirect was probably done for pratic purposes, to avoid red links, years ago. Like this. Höstblomma (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


What relevance has all this to do with that Im blocked? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, YOU were the one that started to discuss semantics, keep to the subject at hand. Argue the facts, not the person. -- Jsdo1980 (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My personal conclusion edit

I can not see a clear indication of me breaking any rules, or breaking a consensus, because after hours of discussions, no one can show that claimed consensus, and Höstblomma, who discussed for days, that cockfighting should belong to the category crimes in Sweden, was wrong, since no written verifying source has been presented, that cockfighting is prohibited in Sweden. I have been accused of being aggressive, but asking the community to block another user you are discussing with, is far more aggressive, Also wishing another user should burn, is also far more aggressive than anything that i have been accused for, with failed evidence, after hours of discussions.

I ask for my block to be removed now. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also edit

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Do_something_about_svwiki&oldid=23837564"