Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | Norfuk / Pitkern | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | Taclḥit | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/-

Welcome to Meta!Edit

Hello Stho002!, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


  Done - by Maxim. Autoblocks (which is the IP adress of a blocked user) are listed on Special:Ipblocklist with a mask like #1234 and a block summary like "Autoblocked because your IP adress has been recently used by ... the reson given was .... (unblock)" Just click unblock, add a summary and click ok, that's all. Best regards, —Dferg (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


If it's closed it means further comments are pointless. There was a brief discussion about protecting archived confirms and elections and most of people eventually said "it's useless since no one will longer edit them the same", now I think protecting them all is definitely needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Please express your concerns in an appropriate, respectful and constructive manner, or don't express them at all. It looks to me like you'd better turn your computer off for a while and control your frustrations. If you continue misbehaving, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks for your understanding, Mathonius (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked from Meta eh? How could I go on living? Answer: very easily. I tried the rational/constructive debate route, but all I got back was meaningless rhetoric from moronic control freaks, who make the rules up as they go along, and stewards just turn a blind eye. Clearly, in wikiland, people can't tell the difference between consensus/democracy on the one hand and mob rule on the other hand. Just sayin' ... Stho002 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
So? Resorting to rudeness, cussing and randomly assuming bad faith isn't going to make things any better... Mathonius (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It makes me feel better, and that is about all that is left to salvage from the disgraceful events of the last few months, whereby I was ousted from Wikispecies by an aggressive mob of sysops with steward backing, who broke more rules along the way than I ever did ... Stho002 (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
With a little more background, now, I notice your honesty. "It makes me feel better." That is, I'm sure, accurate. This is human-generic. It makes us feel better to blame others for what's Bad. However, it also radically disempowers us. If it's someone else's fault, then it can't be fixed unless they change. If it's my fault, I have power (or at least an idea of where I may productively work, i.e., on myself). The reality is the opposite of how most of us think. Taking responsibility isn't about blame, it's about power.
"They are bad" works in tribal warfare, when we needed a simple guide to behavior, and killed the Bad people, if we didn't run from them because they were too strong. If we want to function in civil society, it works very poorly.
Back up. Ontologically, "fault" and "good" and "bad" are invented stories, they don't exist in reality. Once we realize they are stories, myth, we then can realize we can make up alternate stories, and there is no limit to these. So we may invent stories that empower us. "My fault" is such a story. It can work miracles, I've seen this again and again. That path is not open to us as long as we believe that our stories are Truth and, of course, it would be hypocritical to "pretend" other than the Truth, right? --Abd (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stho002, I am banned on en.wikipedia, through the action of an abusive faction, in my opinion. So I can have, at least initially, some sympathy for you. However, you will never accomplish positive change through what you have been doing. All that you will accomplish is getting yourself banned here as well, and possibly globally. You have drastically misunderstood the role of stewards. You have now been blocked by one, for a month. Some of the stewards are quite tolerant, some are not, but you have been disruptive here, and it was predictable that a steward or a local sysop would block you.
  • Imagine a professor at a university who has a grievance with the administration, who then, instead of following established dispute resolution procedures, interrupts university meetings, calls the campus police to demand they arrest the President of the University, and is otherwise grossly and obviously disorderly. What would happen?
  • These are wikis. They are communities. They are generally self-governing, though process that is ad hoc and often not very well-developed. This much is clear: if I cannot engage other members of the community to support me, I cannot accomplish much of anything, except by staying out of trouble, which, then, requires that I respect warnings, etc. It doesn't matter how smart I am. It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, if I cannot communicate with others, and yet I insist on doing things my way, without respecting the community, it will eject me.
  • You are correct. You will "go on living." The banhammer doesn't actually inflict pain. In fact, because I was banned on, I put my energies elsewhere, for high return. You would be welcome on en.wikiversity *if you can remain civil.* You could build educational resources there, with community support, but you will need to be responsive to the needs of the community. If you explode and start calling other users "cretins," "idiots," etc., you could be one of the rare users blocked there as well.
  • Again, because of no longer being distracted by Wikipedia, I did the work and was published under peer review, on my favorite topic, in a major mainstream journal, with a paper I'm told by the best experts in the field, is of high importance. I never graduated from college. So, consider the advice of Mathonius. Take advantage of the break provided you by the blocking steward.
  • You could be unblocked on species. It would not be terribly difficult, procedurally. It might be difficult psychologically, but that's up to you. All it would take is acknowledging what you did, and adding one word: "Sorry." Because of the history, it would take a little time and patience. If you need help, ask. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with below) I looked around a bit. [1]. Fascinating. I have encountered a very similar situation as you, the aggressive removal of links from Wikipedia articles to Wikiversity, by editors with an obvious POV agenda, who do not want to allow readers ready access to alternative points of view.
  • Now, how to handle this. Allow me to point out that if I have to do it myself, by creating block or ban-evading accounts, I don't have community support and I will fail. I have used socks in an emergency, to positive effect, or, once, for about a month, as investigation, but that must be an exception, and very temporary, and it can easily backfire. I haven't socked for more than a single, isolated edit, well over three years. Gradually, we have been expanding the usage of Wikiversity sister wiki templates. We will extend that, with community support, into some of the battleground articles that have been so aggressively defended. We will not do this by head-on, very personal attack. We will do it by engaging the community.
  • I have almost thirty years of on-line community experience. When someone appears angry and demanding, on-line communities see them as the problem. It doesn't matter what the actual history is, it is an instinctive human reaction. If you want to accomplish something on wikis, you must be able to detach from your emotional reactions. Often someone angry may imagine that everyone else is irrational. Yet "cretin," "idiot," etc., are not sober, objective assessments. They are reactive. The reactions are very human, amygdala-mediated. When they are active, the cerebral cortex becomes only a limited servant of the "emergency;" this has an obvious survival function, but it breaks down when detachment is required for clear and fully intelligent response.
  • Many very intelligent people can fall into this. It can even take training to move beyond it. Again, good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Very well written, @Abd:, and I want to confirm the possibility to become unblocked on Wikispecies. IF you would be able to convince the community there, that you are willing to cooperate, follow the Policy rules, by acknowledging what you did, and adding one word: "Sorry.", your chances of getting unblocked would increase very much. In fact, I was just on the way of suggesting the community to aloud me to open your talk page there, just before you started with your latest attack on me and Wikispecies communiy. I would still be willing to, but I'm afraid that after those latest activities on Meta, I will have less chances to succeed with such a suggestion. Still, I very much agree with Abds words, and that you could change everything over a night, with a changed attitude. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dan, I'm gratified to see your thoughtful response and intention. It's obvious the user is steamed. I see that there was a global lock for a short time, properly removed by Billinghurst. In fact, I'm glad to see that lift. I've been aware of occasional misuse of global locks. Call it "off-label." It's likely to continue, stewards being human, until and unless we establish clear policy. Maybe in another decade?
Now, when I see a block or ban based on reactivity, I do not recommend lifting it until and unless the user shows an understanding of the problem, and commits to self-restraint. What is all too common is that the user continues to complain about others, and there is an endless reservoir of possible complaints. Very common is complaint against a blocking admin. The generic community response is for the blocking admin to recuse, to make it clear that a conflict is not with that admin, but with the community or community standards. However, an admin may always undo their own action. A dysfunctional response is for another admin to lift the block without addressing the underlying problem. That will predictably lead back to the same old, same old.
My training is to trust a users' commitment. They might fail. The underlying psychology can be difficult to disentangle. So I would never take a failure as proof that the user cannot change. Incivility blocks should be, my opinion, swift and reliable, i.e., predictable. An incivility block should be short, with limited escalation. The structural problem is that community attention can be unreliable. However, there are fixes. They require patience and detachment on the part of administrators, with a community that supports the administration. So ... on Wikiversity, my last block there. That is how to handle a short block. Long blocks are not really different. Users need to know how to handle being blocked. Who trains them?
I took responsibility for my error. "Error" is something that would cause a response like that. I did not figure out and waste time with how I was right or justified in what I did. I could easily have gone there. A total waste of time. The issue -- I've been trained -- is always the future. The situation on Wikiversity has become that, what I ask for, I'm given. I don't need admin tools, though I'm considering obtaining them again. (When I've had them, I've become a target.)
If I may be of any assistance, Dan, please don't hesitate to ask. My long-term interest has been wiki structure, building functionality (which requires efficiency), and assisting users to become productive. I'm occasionally successful, when users come to understand that my goal is to empower them. Not against someone, but for the goals of the community, as well as their personal goals. --Abd (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Abd, I very much value your positive intentions, and thank you for your will to help work out a possible positive direction with this. I will try not to use too many words, and by all means, don't get involved in anything like a discussion, but yes, I do want to express a honest wish that this sad story could get a happy end. Personally, I wouldn't ask for much more than I stated above, in order to support an unblock. I suppose that some of the users on Wikispecies may have another opinion, but Im very for, to give everyone second chances. And it needs to be repeated, Stho002 is by most members of Wikispecies, a respected taxonomist, a valued contributor, and by at least some of us, a missed member of WS. The reasons for the blocking, was other issues, and if Stho002 would take initiative so solve those issues, I believe an unblock may be possible, and I would in such a case, be very happy to support that, as well as trying to minimize the conditions for an unblock, because in the end an unblock is about trust, not about words. If Stho002 would be willing to some sort of relevant promise of his choice , I would prefer to believe him, and try to help the situation into an unblocking. If, however, I would not believe him, tons of words would fail to change my suspicions. I believe your assistance in this process, Abd is essntial, and I hope Stho002 will value your efforts as much as I do. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
What a load of old bollocks! Dan should be a politician, not a mouse tamer or whatever he is. Here Dan_Koehl admits to destroying thousands of categories created by me, without him understanding how my categories differ from those of other contributors, or what the community consensus really is on such categories! This amounts to an attack on my edits in particular, just because they are mine! Now we read above him lie through his teeth, trying to make out that I am somehow in the wrong, when I am only guilty of a few very minor errors of judgement, while he is guilty of gross abuses of sysop tools and massive scale vandalism. This is also his approach to attempt to justify his block from svWP, whereby he again maintains that he has done nothing wrong, but everybody else there has conspired against him! Dan simply cannot take any criticism whatsoever, not even from stewards. He feeds off the popularity of a territorial gang of WS contributors who are envious of my abilities to make bigger and better contributions than they can manage. Dan is truly the scum of the Earth, and I personally do not trust one word of his empty rhetoric. I have no intention of ever returning to Wikispecies, now that he has ruined it. He can go to hell as far as I am concerned, and I hope he goes there via a particularly painful and undignified route, because he deserves it. I am not saying all this to try to get myself back to Wikispecies, and I have no interest in Meta, nor any other Wikimedia playground for fragile egos. No, I am in control here, not him, and I say these things for the sole reason that they express the truth. I have nothing to lose, because there is nothing that I want from Wikimedia. My goal here is simply to highlight what a dangerous son of a bitch Dan Koehl really is. Stho002 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stho, you still have access to this talk page. Let me suggest that you not use it to complain about anyone, it could result in cutoff of talk page access. You may engage positively with Dan here, I'm watching, and I can facilitate if needed. Don't make promises you can't keep. I'm not suggesting any pretense, but rather an inquiry, an exploration of the future.
  • If you want to complain, email me. I can even forward something, or bring it here or elsewhere -- anywhere but on -- if I consider it useful. I consider you a valuable user, and you being blocked and banned a loss for the wikis. I will be frank with you in email, as here, and you will not be sanctioned for what you write to me. If I want you to stop, I'll tell you, so feel free. You may also ask me to leave you alone.... I would respect that (and if you don't attack anyone in the request, that won't cut off your talk page access). It's really up to you. --Abd (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: I don't know who the fuck you are, or who the fuck you think you are, but I'd really like to know how you can justify uncritically accepting Dan's version of events, and then writing the above drivel to me without first asking for my version of events? Also, how can you justify not challenging Dan, who clearly remains defiant in the face of valid criticism (from OhanaUnited, Tegel, Billinghurst, etc.), and who simply invokes conspiracy theories to dismiss such criticism of him. He thereby can always claim that "the community" fully supports him, because anyone who doesn't support him is outcast and not considered to be part of the community! So, how do you justify all this, Abd? Or are you just someone Dan brought in to "subtely" support him?? You are demonstrably not impartial, since you have uncritically accepted Dan's version of events, and failed to challenge his obvious procedural errors and defiance in the face of criticism. So, what's your game, eh? Stho002 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, you pinged me. I do know who I am, and you obviously don't. Does it matter? This is what I see, here, in front of me. Dan looks really good, and you look awful. What caused that? If he's an idiot, he sure knows how to play the crowd! Are you aware of what you are doing? Are you deliberately alienating everyone? Some do seek that, you know. Maybe you need to change your avocation, and this is how you do it.
I have not seriously reviewed the events on species wiki. I have not "accepted" Dan's version of events. My training is as a scientist, I don't prejudge. In fact, I don't judge even after I do the research, I just report, but sometimes conclusions become obvious.
At this point, I see only your behavior here, and it's totally obvious. I see your 500,000 contributions and conclude that you are either a very hard worker, or obsessed, perhaps both, and, obviously, without reviewing them, I can't tell the difference. There may be, for all I know, a horrific history of abuse behind your block. Yet I was a prison chaplain, I knew men who were in prison for murder. One was defending his family. What? Why didn't he get off on a plea of self-defense? Because he killed the man in a Taco Bell across the street from a police station. While the man had indeed threatened his family, he had a gun and shot the man immediately and did not take alternative action. He was former U.S. Special Forces, a trained killer, and he was black. Put those together, it's not surprising he ended up in prison. Just? No, not really. Next question?
What does that have to do with you? It does not matter how "right" you are. You are dealing with a human community that doesn't care about "right," it cares about appearances. It is difficult to get people to look beyond them, most won't. So you create an immediate and obvious appearance of a very angry, disgruntled, obsessed, and blaming user. And most Wikimedians will just want to get you out of their face.
My game? What do you want to know? I have a long-term interest in community structure and collective decision-making, it goes way back, more than thirty years. I anticipated wikis, and long considered how to make them efficient and reliable. It's not always welcome. Yet I will not make progress by railing against the "stupid people." It doesn't work. And, in fact, it would be my own stupidity thinking that way. People are people, and play differing roles. I remember a record I had in my twenties, "w:How to speak Hip." Ah, that dates me! One of the gems on that record was "Don't put the squares down. Squares keep the subway running." I was smart, top 0.1%. Or higher. It took me a while to get that I was only smart in certain ways, not in others. But I did get it.
You will hear what I'm telling you, or you won't. It really is up to you, as I said. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You sound pathetically naive for someone of your advanced years (if indeed that really is the case, it is hard to verify, as are most things about you). One thing you got right is that Dan is indeed extremely skilled at working a crowd. I suspect that is his one and only skill, and it certainly seems to work best on the pathetically naive and those with fragile egos, to which he skillfully panders. Sitting, as I am, in the science faculty of a major university, I am laughing at your little sermon about science! LOL! We must be on different planets or something, mate! I've already told you my motivation now. It is to make known the truth, in all its ugliness. There is absolutely no way I am ever going to apologise to human excrement like Dan Koehl. In fact, I shall wait patiently for his apology to me. I'm sure it gives you great pleasure to make out that you are some great "wiki diplomat", but I just find it to be pathetic. You are wasting what is left of your life screwing with people, under a thin veil of "diplomacy" that I for one can see right through. Why don't you get out and do something worthwhile? I know it is so much the soft option for you to whack me for incivility or whatever, while at the same time ignoring the far more serious and difficult problems like the current mob rule on Wikispecies. But I expect you know how to work the crowd as well ... Stho002 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: Here's the thing, Abd: you have basically just expressed, as your own philosophy, everything that is bad about Wikimedia sites. Namely, you admit that you haven't "seriously reviewed the events on species wiki", and yet you wade in to this dispute without sufficient background relating to the FACTS (making worse your drivel about "science"!) Yes, wikis are about community, but they are also about providing solid unbiased information to users, particularly to young and possibly impressionable people. I take that aspect very seriously. There is a very fine line between "community" and "mob rule". Wikispecies has crossed that line. I am not putting the amusement of a bunch of territorial users first. I am putting the information content of the site first. I don't care how I come across to other people. I only care about my actual motives and intentions. It is called "integrity" ... you may need to look it up ... Stho002 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: I also draw your attention to this, and the section below it. Here we clearly see the Wikispecies mob lobbying hard to gain more sysop power, when it is clearly not needed. They are trying to rewrite the rules where they see obstacles to this agenda, in terms of requirements. Stho002 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: So, Abd, why don't you actually BE a good scientist, instead of just preaching from your chair? Why don't you do your homework, and get up to speed with the background FACTS before wading into a dispute which you know nothing about, rather than judging it all on on some superficial notion of "civility" and "community consensus"? For example, can you give me a solid rationale for why Dan Koehl has deleted thousands of my categories, while trying not to delete entirely equivalent categories of other users? What is the difference between my categories and theirs? What is the overall consensus on WS categories? Which categories are allowed and which are not? Have I broken any policy which justifies the removal of my categories? Why is Dan Koehl nominating users for admin/crat, voting in favour, and then closing the voting and promoting them all himself? These are the important questions, the hard questions. Why are you too gutless to tackle the real issues? Or do you just like taking the soft option and supporting the majority against the underdog? Stho002 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stephen, reading what you write her, and adding that to what I believe I already know about about you, I just came to think, why does everybody try to make you cooperate, and compromise with a community? It is obvious that you have less joy of community working and that it simply reduce your ambitions, you feel troubled but other people, and you want to have 100% control of what you are doing, which you believe is the best way of doing it. But, you like the wiki concept because its effective and easy to work with. And here the obvious, logical and most natural question rise: Why don't you simply run your own, private website? It sounds like that would reduce all problems you have experienced with other Wikimedia users? And any idea, categories, geographic limits or coverage, etc, would lie totally in your hands to decide. Did you think on this? Keeping a domain name would cost you some 10-15 US dollar/year, and there you can upload any wiki script, either the Wikimedia which you are used to, or something more basic, easier to modify, should you want. I used to run several wikis on my private space domains, and I still have a en:UseMod script, which I would be glad to hand over. I would even be willing to make any tailor made modifications. The content you would submit on your won UseMod would be compatible with Wikimedia, why you could upload to your site (provided you follow the copyright rules you accepted every time you saved a file on Wikispecies) everything you've done on Wikispecies, and vice versa. Stephen, I have to tell you that you are presently wasting your time, when you could be hard producing instead. I believe even you can see that this is in fact just a friendly suggestion, with no hidden agendas, politics etc. I think in your case its worth to consider. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
So, Dan, let me get this straight! Putting aside the astonishing level of hypocrisy in calling ME a control freak ("you want to have 100% control of what you are doing"), what you are basically saying is "go away and do it on your own website if you must, but you are not welcome here". Well, first off, that seems to me to contravene the most fundamental core principle of Wikimedia sites. You are merely saying that if enough users want rid of me, then I'm fucked! Actually, I am a member of many other online biodiversity communities, without any problems whatsoever. In fact, all that you are achieving, by this whole charade, is me moving a vast amount of information from WS to other sites, thus making WS even more expendable and redundant than it already was. Well done! As for my own website, do you think I'm stupid or what? Everybody knows that websites' ability to reach an audience depends on how "visible" they are (how highly ranked on Google, etc.) So having your lowly band of cretins garbage ranked higher than my site would hardly be of benefit to mankind, would it? And don't try to contradict me on that, when we all know that you know next to nothing about the actual subject matter on Wikispecies. If I asked you what the relevant nomenclatural codes are for the various taxa, would you be able to answer? I think not. All you care about is being the popular hero champion of a bunch of misfits, so you blindly do whatever they want. Pathetic ... Stho002 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You were replying to Dan, but I'll take this one. You wrote: "Well, first off, that seems to me to contravene the most fundamental core principle of Wikimedia sites. You are merely saying that if enough users want rid of me, then I'm fucked!"
Yes, "fucked," though it's just a wiki. Who determines the "most fundamental core principle of Wikimedia sites"? Have you been living in a fantasy, that somehow policies and core principles will enforce themselves? You believed the propaganda? The w:WP:Five pillars are ideals, not reality.
They are incomplete. The fundamental principle behind all WMF wikis -- not necessarily all MediaWiki installations -- is that they are community-governed. My long-time work -- over thirty years, it used to be what I was best known for -- is creating structure that will more reliably and efficiently bring ideals and reality together, but this will never change: offend the community, enough, and anyone is history. Every human community is like that, and has always been like that. In any case, I see no more value in chatting here, you may continue to work yourself into a froth without me. Let me know if you change your mind. --Abd (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: Ah yes, the familiar reply of "I see no more value in chatting here" when someone is losing an argument on rational grounds, they ramp up the rhetoric. And no I haven't been "living in a fantasy". However, there are others who might not realise quite how much of a "fantasy" the "five pillars" really are, so I am merely expressing as clearly as possible the rot at the core of Wikimedia, i.e. there is no distinction made between "consensus" and "mob rule". For this reason, Wikimedia is fundamentally flawed, and ought to be abandoned. I predict that it will eventually destroy itself, as the pond shrinks around a school of hungry sharks. So, you have ignored my questions which relate to factual matters about this case, and simply again choose to pile on the rhetoric. Pathetic ... Stho002 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No Stephen, you didn't get it straight at all. I gave you an alternative suggestion, which doesn't removes any other ideas. You can run a website AND be part of community. You can have it almost 100% searchable, since I as a search engine specialist have optimized the UseMod script to even better performace with google. Sarch on google for the following swedish names for different species, and see on which website you get as number 1-10 on google: kungskobra, alligatorer, hajar, inlandstaipan, and then after ending up on the same website www, look for some binomial scientific names there, and continue to google, you'll see that my knowledge in SEO is easy to double check. Regarding your competition game of taxonomy, No you are right, you are a better taxonomist than me, because Im not a taxonomist, but I'm not totally lost either. You, on the other hand didn't tame and train a single elephant in your whole life, and I did apr 70 elephants, so I beat you in that game, as in most games. I travveled more countries than you did, had more women than you did, have more children than you have, and as a Swedish citizen, learned about Carl von Linné before you did. I speak more languages than you. etc. But that's not the point, Im not competing with you. The reason I gave you the suggestion, was like I wrote, not what you interpreted, it was to wake you up, from sitting and weeping like a child because you couldn't control other people after your will. Accept that, and behave like a man. Do something, be productive, be creative. Stop weeping, you are not a boy anymore. Buy yourself a website, you earned it. If you get tired on it, sell it. But don't waste your time as some pseudo Hitler, depressed and angry because other people doesnt follow your whistle. Don't waste your time on Meta, and expect someone will hear you and like a parent come to punish the other boys who didn't obey you. You are free, don't create your mental prison here. Be smart. Be a man. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And remember one thing, you may be surprised to think that people may like you. Even when you behave like you were born in the slum in some third country gettho. Peope still try to be friendly, to show they care, after you have been trying to offend them for months. But don't forget, with that still you will never win. you can repeat all the bad words you know and can think of, but that will just prove that you are a looser. I don't want to see you like that. Now rise, and stop wait for daddy. Use the possibilities. Don't restrict yourself, make use of your talents. realease and liberate your creativity, instead of sitting angry about other people. Don't let them control your life like this. Grow up, BE A MAN! Dan Koehl (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Well better a "pseudo-Hitler" than the real thing, Dan Koehl. I really think you need to seek psychiatric help for yourself, Dan. Yes, you are better than me at elephant taming, so, taken out of context, it is one all (I'm better as a "taxonomist", you are better as an elephant tamer), but in the relevant context of Wikispecies, being competent at taxonomy is preferable or even essential, whereas being good at taming elephants is entirely irrelevant! I would have thought a child would understand such a simple rationale relating to relevance, so I can only assume that your lack of understanding is symptomatic of some sort of underlying pathology ... Stho002 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Its only in your phantasy that you are perfect, and all others are bad. The truth is, no one is perfect. And even if Im not as good with taxonomy as you, at least Im member on Wikispecies, and before you, why if you are so perfect? Why are you blocked from there, if you are a perfect person? And don't blame other people, you are not a child anymore. Stop weeping and throwing accusations around you like a looser. RISE and be proud of your self, and try, now when you are proud of being a good taxonomist, try to face the next challenge, and be a good human being! And try to behave adult. And try to get peoples confidence instead of telling them they are idiots after you failed to control them. Open your ears, and listen to peoples suggestions. And open your eyes, and see when people are kind to you. And open your heart and face it, even you could be kind to others. But most of all, stop locking yourself up, and punish yourself. Don't create your prison, and bale others for its presence. Stop behave like a stubborn child. Give yourself and others happiness instead of making people hate you, so you can hate them back. Be smart. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I don't hate you Dan, I'm trying to help you, in my imperfect way. I am a mirror, and all the bad things you see are in your own reflection. You need to understand that. Of course I am not perfect, and I never said or implied that I was, so your straw man is not appreciated. Now, OhanaUnited was a very well intentioned young man, who tried hard to serve the Wikispecies community. I fear that he is going to end up a bitter old man before his time, after the onslaught that you unleashed on him, trying to discredit him. You are evil ... Stho002 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Unlike you, I have no need to "be a man" and reaffirm my masculinity every five minutes. I would say that being a woman is every bit as worthy as being a man. I don't need to tame elephants in order to overcompensate for an insecurity relating to my "manhood". I do not need to compromise ethical principles to satisfy a craving for popularity. I can just sit here and tell it as it is, and that is what I am doing. Stho002 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not speaking about gender, I was referring to the difference between a juvenile homonid and an adult homonid, the differnce between a boy and a man. Whatever phantasy you may have about yourself, is uninteresting. If other people don't agree with you, something in your way of creating your view on reality, is not working. You don't have any ideas about my needs, so forget about that, since such ideas doesn't help you, or your problems. The more you make yourself busy with identifying errors other people do or have, the less time you will spend on yourself. The more you focus on blaming others, the less chances is that you discover your own mistakes. Now I think visit time is over, for my visit in your cell. See you next time, and remember, you don't have to create this prison. Just adapt to the community, and you'll see that most people will accept you, and give you credit for your knowledge.
And my offer remains, Id be help you setting up your website, where you can be in charge. OR assist you back to Wikispecies, but then you can forget about being in charge. Sweet dreams about elephants who presntly belong to 2 different genus, although a crossing was born in Chester zoo 1977. So even taxonomists make mistakes. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I was always happy for OhanaUnited to be in charge at WS. We didn't always see eye to eye, but he was fair, impartial, and well-intentioned ... everything that you are not. Stho002 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: So why didn't you say "be an adult about it"? Instead you said "be a man". I think your slip speaks loudly about the twisted way that you see the world. BTW, the correct term is hominid, not homonid, and intergeneric hybrids are quite possible, so no mistake in elephant taxonomy. Empty gestures just go straight past me, sorry. And you are still avoiding talking about the facts of the matter (like what the WS consensus is on geographic categories, and why you deleted thousands of them without knowing what it was). You just pile on the rhetoric ... Stho002 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
For every minute, for every hour you occupy yourself with me or other people, is lost time for you. It doesn't matter for you what errors I make, and how much and how often, and what others do. Your focus should be on yourself, why you came in the present situation, the relationship between cause and effect. Focus on yourself, and try to push yourself up from the ditch you fell into. You don't belong there. You shoudnt be there, still there you are, and people are watching you, some of them pointing fingers at you. Now, instead of pretending for yourself that some evil person pushed you there, face the thruth, and ask yourself, what you can change, so you never end up in that ditch again. Accept peoples hands when they want to help you up. And as most british speaking people, stop be proud that you can speak your own language, the challenge is speaking someone elses language, or three or four different languages. Der das besitzen wissen in ein fremde Sprache, kann Stolz sein. Mama labana somanaye lankave yanava. Im a firm believer of Linnes classification and species definition. If two animals produce fertile offspring, they belong to the same species. If two individuals produce sterile offspring, they belong to the same genus. Everyone can modify the rules of playing golf, but then its not golf anymore. Linne made the rules for his game, and he was brighter than all of us. If you didn't produce anything better the last weeks, than making wars, you have been wasting your time. Now help yourself, because no one else will. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: You spew forth endless rhetoric, Dan! You are just as much engaged in this exchange as I am. Why don't you take your own advice, and go away to do something useful? Actually, I am multitasking. I am not in any ditch. I have probably made a far bigger contribution to other projects today than you do in a week, and it hasn't been a particularly productive day. Anyway, shouldn't you be pointlessly deleting more of categories? That should keep you out of trouble. Such a shame that Wikispecies is unlkely to reach 500K articles any time soon! We WERE going so well, but that was under OhanaUnited's leadership. Now WS is just a ship of fools. FYI, species concepts are a hotly debated topic. If two species freely interbreed in the wild, then they are the same species. A zoo isn't "in the wild", so the hybrid implies little or nothing about elephant taxonomy. It is all a bit over your head, me thinks ...Stho002 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Genes don't know if they are in a zoo, in a circus, om Mars, or in the wild, Stephen, what counts is if the sperm penetrates Zona pellucida, the egg gets fertilized, and reaches Blastula and Gastrula or whatever you call in english, , and doesn't die as fetus, but gets born live. That's just simple logic, no need to study taxonomy for that. 2. Wikispecies don't need any leaders, it's a community, not an army. 3. Wikispecies will reach 500K, when is not important. Its more important that the atmosphere is calm, in harmony, and that users behave democratic and are are equal. I know you don't believe in this, and look where you are, in your last window to Wikimedia, in the last section where you are not blocked. 4. It was nice visiting you here, I may come back another day, sleep well. And don't forget to focus a little on yourself, thinking on other people may confirm how important they are for you, bu you should think on yourself also. I have 15 websites, you have zero. I wonder why. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: More amusing drivel from you! My God, man, is there no end to your meaningles rhetoric and propensity for factual errors?
  1. I suggest that you do a biology 101 course! There is no logic in what you have written. The connection between hybrid individuals and species concepts is much more complicated than that.
I didnt refer to that, I referred to your opnion that theres hould be any difference between wild and a zoo. I thought any laymen thought that.
The most widespread species concept makes an important distinction between in the wild and in captivity. In captivity, animals (or plants) may behave differently to the way that they behave in the wild. Ecological factors may be lacking in captivity which prevent cross breeding in the wild. You are WAY out of your depth Stho002 (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is looking a lot like an army these days.
  2. Wrong! I am not and have never been blocked at Commons, nor at Wikidata, nor at any of the non-English Wikipedias...
  3. Again, wrong! I have advanced rights on several websites, I'm not going to bother counting them. Possibly not 15, but it is quality that matters, not quantity. Stho002 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have 15 websites that I own, which I programmed, which I created, they are mine. Of course I wouldn't refer to other peoples websites, which I don't own, as mine.
Well your English is so bad, and your ego so inflated, that I thought that is what you might have meant. I suggest you focus your efforts on your 15 websites, rather than fucking up Wikispecies Stho002 (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And stop think about OhanaUnited, or mamma, or daddy. They can't help you. YOU must be adult and help yourself out of the situation YOU, and no one else have produced. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Now who is being childish? I'm not in any "situation" that I am trying to get out of. I am just trying to expose you for what you really are, an insidious little misanthrope Stho002 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Afghanwrites: I can only edit my talk page, due to an excessive 1 MONTH block for a MINOR insult (calling someone an idiot, when they wrote garbage to try to undermine my position in a dispute). Anyway, I have just been reading what Abd has written on your talk page, and would like to comment, if I may? It seems to me that Abd is just another control freak, trying to impose his will on others, namely on you in this case. He knows that there is no hope of the idealistic "resolution" that he so fancifully describes. Much of what he has said about your wiki, could apply equally to the dire situation currently on Wikispecies, and yet neither Abd nor anyone else is interested in trying to resolve that situation. They are just making the rules up as they go along, to suit themselves, and choosing the softest targets to attack with their sysop tools. This seems to be the sad truth of Wikimedia now. I therefore urge you to spread the word that Wikimedia sites are now little more than a cesspit of dirty politics and power plays. There is nothing of any worth here ... Stho002 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that, not very funny here, but it was nice to communicate and share your world some hours. If you change your mind, Ill be happy to setup a wiki website, which you could call your own. Ill do it without cost, as a friendly favor. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You still misunderstand a steward's roleEdit

There is no need to email me, I have a working user talk page. Stewards would usually not have an informed opinion about local wikis except for where they are community members, in which case they don't act as stewards on those wikis. I have no personal interest in Wikispecies and its content management workings, and whether I agree or not with their content management issues is irrelevant, the community is able to work it out how they wish to operate. The community has local processes to manage matters, and I have no particular interest in their local politics.

Where someone does not agree with a community's operations, then we would say bring it up on the local wiki. If they wish to bring it to the broader community, then do that, and that is a RFC. There is no authoritative rule from a steward. There is not an ArbCom functionality with stewards. Our role is defined, and that is what we do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I will always act within the role and scope of stewards' policy and that will include undertaking reasonable and legitimate checkuser requests, and trying to influence me otherwise is quite unseemly.

you are rightEdit

Thank you for the fully description of this useless help. Though elderly man is respected cause he is older than me and even over age as my grand father but he is totally wrong with the frame of policy. hope he understand that those of 283 wikipedian languages work on their language base is only because to give knowledge to their community not to enforce the globalization.--Afghanwrites (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. I know better whats going on in Pashto wikipedia than any other from en-wikipedia or else.
  2. I have degree in Pashto language and can understand the format of the sentence than a Pakistani , Indian or other national.
  3. I have fully respect for human rights , humanity , religious freedom , etc, but someone who knows the western people are more judging people by their look not by their thoughts , though they perhaps are wrong but its how someone take it and complain to them using their rhethoric as in the film (The Good , The Bad , The Ugly), and at last he is insulted.
  4. All the matter is different explained in the Stewards just to win over the Khangul and other admins.
  5. Iam not Admin yet and never want to be but my goal is to enrich the wikipedia as english one, thats why i come here work other than that I have no bad intentions. but despite all the problem solvers at Stewards who made hundreds or more than that policy options is not benificial .

from now on I will finish working here its not independent , and has no benifits to us , in english wiki also many people written wrong histories , wrong artcles which is full of political intentions. BYE BYE WIKIPEDIA.--Afghanwrites (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Afghanwrites: Don't listen to Billinghurst either, he is trying to manipulate you. If you leave, he won't be able to order you around anymore, so he encourages you to stay so that he can continue the chess game of being a steward, you being one pawn. If he was sincere, he would be equally concerned about the mob rule at Wikispecies, but intead he writes (in the section above) [quote]I have no personal interest in Wikispecies and its content management workings, and whether I agree or not with their content management issues is irrelevant, the community is able to work it out how they wish to operate[unquote], admitting that as a steward he has no interest whatsoever in Wikispecies, and letting the mob rule continue there unchallenged, be it right or wrong! Instead, all eyes are on me, and any excuse to block me again and again for minor insults or any excuses that they can dream up. The way that Wikimedia is set up makes it inevitable that mob rule will reign. The majority view is the correct view by definition, according to them! They call it "democracy", but it is just mob rule. The stewards get amusement from playing in these games, since they themselves cannot be blocked or excluded. Stho002 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan_Koehl's continuing destruction of WikispeciesEdit

@Abd: I have read your "Outside review" etc. on the WS VP. The scope of your review is still rather narrow. You really should look at everything from when Franz Xaver kicked it all off, towards the end of 2014, possibly at Dan_Koeh's request, by calling for a review of my admin status. However, you review does appear to recognise at least some of the problems relating to Dan_Koehl's attitudes, behaviour and agenda. The problem though is that your review will most likely simply be ignored by the mob of problematic users/admins/crats who have taken over WS, or else they will merely pay lip service to your recommendations. Bear in mind that, since becoming a crat, Dan_Koehl has unilaterally nominated, voted for, closed voting, and promoted many users, carefully selected by him to form a like-minded mob with mutual support and similar goals. IMHO, Dan_Koehl should be desysopped as a matter of some urgency, and all those that he promoted should be returned to their former status. Only then can we have a wiki back which is free of corruption/cronyism/mob rule. Stho002 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm an outsider, Stho002. I was asked (by you) to look at Wikispecies, and I did, and commented. It is up to the Wikispecies community, that is, those who actually work on that project, to choose where to go, to use what I presented, or to ignore it. What you are asking for is very unlikely to happen that way. Definitely, there were what I consider "process errors," but above, I pointed to the real authority on wikis: the community. If the community is willing to tolerate those errors, that is up to the community. It will create what it deserves. I am not the judge. I'm merely a witness. I am not about to do a comprehensive review of either your actions or those of Dan. It took a full half day to do what I did. If requested by that community, I will do more, but that is completely up to that community. I will look at comment on what I wrote.
@Abd: @Billinghurst: @Abd, you misunderstand and/or misrepresent me! I have always maintained at WS that I am fully prepared to cooperate, put aside past problems, not bear any grudges, and work with the rest of the community to build and improve WS. The problem is that the community is toxic. It is largely now a community of Dan_Koehl's making (the sysop power structure, that is). It is a "mob" or "gang", who have no interest in cooperation with me. The community may well deserve the mess it is creating for itself, but the public deserve better than that. Particularly the younger generation who come to Wikimedia sites for information. It isn't all about the community. Think of the wider public. One vicious little mob of territorial editors is being allowed to have global influence. If you can accept that, then I really don't know how you can sleep at night. Take some responsibility, man! Where is your integrity? Stho002 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I will also look for comment, especially, from Dan. My goal is the empowerment of users, not their disempowerment. Because I stand for that for all users, what I seek and attempt to encourage is cooperation, because cooperation is powerful.
You seem to think me naive. What I'm suggesting is in operation on en.wikiversity. It was not always that way. Our major founder is still blocked, and that's a matter I intend to clean up. It is very doable, if he is still interested in participation. What had he done? Basically, he refused to let go of old abuse by others. He kept complaining instead of moving forward. Now, he really was abused. I've been telling you, it doesn't matter if you are right, what actually matters is how you are being.
You are horrendously naive! Why? Because you just can't seem to see how you are being manipulated by the Koehl gang. They have suckered you in. You are protecting abusers (you don't happen to be a catholic, do you??) Stho002 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If I stop commenting here, you have indicated that you will then believe you have "won," by the force of your "rational arguments." I've seen this behavior from people with certain social disabilities, on-line, for years. I have such a disability, myself; however, it became essential for me that I take responsibility for the effects I have on others. Otherwise, I become just another victim of what I have no control over. You are not responding rationally at all. You ignore and set aside what is said to you, to make every discussion an attack on others. Here, you not only attack me, you essentially attack all Catholics. The end of this is very, very predictable.
If you do not alter your behavior, you will be blocked here. I cannot tell how far it will go, but a global lock is quite possible. Yes, your IP will be blocked, if you insist, and range blocks may be used, it depends. None of this is a moral judgment. It's just an interpretation of real possibility, by someone with extensive experience. This has nothing to do with anyone else, other than you, your behavior, and the global Wikimedia community. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What you want, it appears, is for the "bad users" to be punished. To gain that, you would need power that you do not have. Same for me, by the way. I don't have that power. I do have the power, when I'm speaking for consensus, to arrange for a user to be blocked. If I'm just speaking for myself, maybe, maybe not, and damage can be done. I have arranged for desysop, quite a few times, and it's highly disruptive, to be avoided if at all possible. There is major collateral damage. It better damn well be necessary. And Wikispecies is not my wiki. Wikiversity is, and I'm becoming active on Commons. I'm still very careful on Commons, because, easily, the "outsider" label can be pasted on my forehead. But I am starting to work there. I'm presently active on meta, as well. So far, this time, so good. It is not always welcome. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: @Billinghurst: Also, Abd, I am not sure why you bothered giving a long review relating to the blocking of account NZCat. I did not raise this as an issue, though it is interesting that even here you did find some minor procedural errors by Dan_Koehl. I have no knowledge or interest in the account NZCat. You started your review by claiming that you were asked to review it, but this was not by me. I do hope that you are not cherry picking issues to find only minor fault on the part of Dan_Koehl? There are far more serious issues. The lead up to the indefinite block of stho002 on WS is perhaps the most serious. I was hounded for months by the mob objecting to everything I said or did. They were constantly changing and reinterpreting the rules to suit their agenda, being highly uncivil and antagonistic towards me until I could take it no more and handed them a loaded gun so that they would put me out of my misery. Stho002 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, but you suggested I look at the "next section," and I did, and it was that section. You are almost certainly NZCat, that is why Billinghurst did not perform checkuser. NZCat, if not you, was clearly pursuing an agenda related to your interests.
@Abd: yes, there was a misunderstanding (by you)! The next section was just this. It just shows Dan Koehl lobbying to change the rules to fit his agenda, that's all, but you don't seem to give a damn! Stho002 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I did comment on the bot issue, extensively. Every user has the right to "lobby to change the rules." However, what are the rules? It's very obvious, Stephen. You have never understood how wikis work. You routinely violate the real traditions of the wikis. For example, revert warring on Stewards/Confirm/2015/Shizhao. You finally figured out you could use the Talk page. Then refusing to accept a steward close on the Stewards noticeboard. Users have been indeffed here for far less. I think I know why you haven't been indeffed. None of the stewards takes you seriously. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have not done, I'll repeat, a comprehensive review of the actions of Dan. That's a huge amount of work, and I haven't been engaged to do that. You asked me to look, I looked, and commented. That's basically it. There are definitely problems on Wikisource, with the most obvious sign being the conflict between Dan and the other crat. To me, what is most obvious as the source of the problems is not Dan, at all. It's the community. "We have met the enemy and he is us." The community obviously didn't care about process issues. You didn't. You did not object to Dan being appointed crat as he was. Nobody did, apparently. Who cared?
The chickens come home to roost. I am not attacking Dan. He simply accepted the action of the 'crat, and I don't see that the community is guiding him. You were too personally involved, too reactive, to support him. Look, I've had problems with some of the stewards. If I kept complaining about them, what would happen? I will comment when it's appropriate, but, always, what I've found, the problem is not abusive administrators, it is a community that doesn't stand for itself, that looks the other way when there are problems, that doesn't resolve them. Instead, it's all too easy to fall into "So-and-so is a bad user," for the Kool-Aid drinkers, and "So and so is a bad admin" for the mirror. None of this builds community or builds the future. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: @Billinghurst: Lastly, Abd, we have what is potentially the most serious issue of all, relating to CU policy. The mob at WS have made repeated references to a "range block" coming my way. I alert you, for example to this diff, which I consider to be most unbecoming of a crat, and, in one of his recent CU requests aimed at me (I haven't time to dig out the diff, but I can if required), Koehl actually states "User Mariusm* asks for a range block"! What is going on here? A RANGE BLOCK! Any sock edits I may have made have been using a single IP, and they have no evidence to the contrary. I have made no recent sock edits while my IP was blocked. If I made any sock edits, I waited until any IP block expired. They haven't put an indefinite block on my IP, so I can, if I want to, return under any number of new accounts using the same IP. So, why are they trying to bypass an indefinite block on my IP and go straight to a range block?? What is their agenda here?? Could it possibly be to block an entire major university from editing WS?? Would such a bold move massage their egos?? Do they think that I would personally suffer as a result of this? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but it wouldn't remove the block. For that, lawyers would have to get involved and it would turn into an institutional legal battle with WMF. Is that what they want to see happen?? Would they get off on that?? Stho002 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, once again pinged. I've been watching and occasionally intervening to support hundreds of blocked and banned users, and the comments above could just get one globally banned for legal threats. Yes, technically, it's not a threat. Technicalities are not necessarily what those with the buttons will think about. Yes, they can and will block an entire major university, if they need to. At one point, to prevent socking, the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. was briefly blocked, rumor has it. It's happened. And they may also go to the university and complain about disruptive editing and TOU violations. Maybe. Or maybe they won't bother unless you actually become a serious nuisance. You aren't there yet. You could be if you keep trying. It has happened that a sysop, on his own, went to a user's employer. Probably a tort.
Firstly, I don't have an employer, so the worst that could happen to me is some inconvenience finding somewhere else to host me. Your words above are a veiled threat, mine were not a threat, but a warning that the Koehl gang may be plotting to escalate things to the point where there could be significant collateral damage. As a hypothetical possibility, it is intriguing to contemplate how it might go. Some universities, especially in this neck of the woods, put great value on what they call 'academic freedom'. Although they probably hardly even know that Wikispecies exists, anything which takes away their academic freedom to express intellectual ideas and information to a wider audience might be taken very seriously indeed, and to fight a battle from that corner would only bring good publicity. The philosphy from the other corner is a bit harder to pin down and/or justify. Stho002 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is, by the way, zero possibility of legal risk to the WMF from a simple IP block. They have no obligation to provide access to anyone. Maybe you should read the TOU. There would be no "institutional legal battle." Who is going to file a lawsuit? No, if the WMF does decide to take legal action, they would go after you. Not your university, probably. But maybe I'm wrong. If they complained to your university, and your university refused to do anything about your access and use of university IP, my opinion is that there could be a cause of action there. Just an opinion. To my knowledge, never tested. Most ISPs will shut down a user upon evidenced complaint of abuse. That's routine. So would your university defend you? Pay your legal costs? Interesting questions, eh?
This is following down your line of thinking. Banned users often decide to refuse to go away. What happens in the long term? Have you studied it? I have. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: I am not going to be intimidated by veiled legal threats (particularly since they amount to little more than threatening me with a stick of limp celery). Big bad WMF can come after me if they like, but the only result for them would be bad publicity and a great deal of wasted time and effort. Besides, if I was a significant problem, the obvious thing to do is to indefinitely block my unique IP. Nobody has done that. Ergo, I am not a significant problem to WMF. Likewise, anybody who tried to complain about me to any institution I may be affiliated with would have to admit "no, his unique IP has not been indefinitely blocked, but you should wash your hands of him anyway!" Kind of falls flat, don't you think? Stho002 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

* Note that Mariusm has repeatedly expressed his [quote]unconditional support[unquote] for Dan_Koehl. I find this to be very strange! Surely "unconditional support" is reserved for loved ones, not wiki crats?! It means that Mariusm supports Dan_Koehl, whether Koehl is right or wrong. It points to the fact that Koehl is pandering to Mariusm's wishes, and in return gets immunity from criticism (i.e., free reign) ... Stho002 (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing! You are probably unaware of this, but User:Faendalimas a.k.a. Scott Thomson, who has been getting involved in the WS drama, has a definite agenda of his own. He is a tortoise taxonomist who has been renaming taxa that have already been named by other taxonomists before him, while trying to discredit them and their work. Scott dislikes me because I refused to replace, on WS, the valid tortoise names with his unnecessary new names for the same taxa. With me out of the way, he is free to do just that, and nobody else at WS cares enough to stop him, particularly if he helps them in their fight against me! Scott is part of a mob of like minded territorial herpetologists, who are engaged in a very nasty campaign to take over reptile naming rights. Stho002 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the interesting distortion there Stephen. I have never said I dislike you at all, in fact have repeatedly said I believe you are a very good taxonomist and have the utmost respect for that. To me your difficulty here on Wikimedia is that you basically do not get along well with others, do not believe in community style structure of Wiki's in general. On the one genus you think I overwrote well it was not me who declared the name that you, more or less alone, believe as unavailable. The author in question was given the opportunity to respond by Zootaxa editors but declined and could produce no evidence he had actually published his paper. In the meantime the name I proposed has been accepted and followed across science, including on Wikipedia and although Wikispecies did not follow it because you protected the page even other admins disagreed with you but you overrode their views. In any case I let the matter be I did not consider it that important. I find it interesting that I am a member of a group of rogue herpetologists when if I recall in an email I sent you on how I was dealing with the Hoser issue you stated you could agree with the approach I am taking. You have also been a very heavy critic of Hoser on taxacom and your issue in the whole thing was how people were dealing with it, ie the Kaiser approach, whereas as I and my 69 co-authors in my most recent BZN paper on the issue took the approach that Hosers work was available but was contentious and asked the ICZN to use its plenary powers to rule it unavailable for nomenclature. As I said you agreed with this approach when I emailed you about it. As for what you are doing now I do not take much notice of you are permanently banned on two projects and on temporary ban here. To me that would seem to mean you have no imput here anymore. Your style and methods have been rejected. I am sorry for that, I truly am, you could be a great contributor, unfortunately your not capable of operating in a community based structure. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Ditto about the "interesting distortion". I didn't say you said that you dislike me, I simply stated that you do dislike me, so whether or not you said so is irrelevant. Yes, you are a much better team player than I am, Scott. Perhaps you should join the Mafia. I think you would fit in there quite well. I, on the other hand, value unbiased truth and accuracy over "getting along with others". Who mentioned Hoser, I was thinking more of Wells, i.e. Wollumbinia Wells, 2007, which you and your cronies "declared" to be an unavailable name, even though you have no authority to do so (only the ICZN has such authority). Anything I did on wiki was intended to protect Wells' rights and maintain proper neutrality on the issue. Stho002 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I did tell you that I had some support for your most recent approach to dealing with the Hoser issue (i.e. petitioning the ICZN, rather than simply "declaring" Hoser's work to be unavailable like you had previously tried to do), but this approach was adopted by you only after previous approaches had failed, and was basically the approach that I had been trying to convince to to adopt for some time, so I'm glad you finally took my advice. Stho002 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I had not made any previous efforts to deal with Hoser, my first instances of dealing with that was in 2014, I always said Hoser's works were published and could not be demonstrated to be any different by over-reading the code. The Wells issue has not been discussed for years, hence I thought you were referring to Hoser. Sure others had made approaches of trying to discredit the validity of the publication but I was not an author on those. Everything I have published on Hoser has stated his works cannot be written off under arts 8-9. Wells is history, since 2010, and is just ignored now. Anyway this is a highly technical discussion not relevant to Wikimedia and has been discussed heavily on taxacom in the past. Faendalimas (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, I was pinged here. I am not about to investigate Faendelimas. I simply note what he wrote: "you could be a great contributor, unfortunately your not capable of operating in a community based structure." I'll disagree with him on the second part. Stephen, if I may call you that, you are capable, but you are not choosing to do so. Rather, you are behaving in a way that any reasonable person would expect would get you banned. Why? While I have ideas, and I could speculate, I don't actually know. Text is very narrow bandwidth. My habits will come up with a list of possibilities, that's about it. So I test some of them. Toss a pebble in the pond, look at the splash. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: You are being very selective in what you choose to comment on (cherry picking). I do NOT choose not to cooperate with the WS community! I have repeatedly offered to cooperate and compromise, but they are like the walking dead who just keep (metaphorically) coming at me with knives out. They are creating a persona around me which is highly inaccurate, and you are falling for it! However, I do value my integrity over their daily dose of amusement as a WS contributor, and I also value the right of the wider public who deserve better than that Stho002 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: @Billinghurst: @Abd, you made some very true remarks on WS VP regarding Dan Koehl's inability to take criticism. In case you haven't seen it already, you really ought to read this section, where he dismisses all criticism of himself by the sysop community at svWP, and puts all the blame on them for his ongoing problems there! Stho002 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read that. What I reported was not an "inability to take criticism," but simply that Dan was reactive. That's normal for human beings when triggered. Dan can learn to be otherwise, if he chooses it. It can take training, effort, discipline, etc. I only saw a narrow slice, one discussion, where he felt threatened. So I tossed a pebble in that pond. I haven't seen the splash yet. I can say what I'm hoping to see. But I won't. Not here. --Abd (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What you actually said to Koehl was that crats [quote]Like all admins, they must be able to receive criticism without responding to it as an attack[unquote]. Clearly, taken in contest this implies that Koehl has an "inability to take criticism", and I have given further evidence of this, where he claims that he is 100% right and the rest of the svWP community is 100% wrong. Sound plausible to you? If so, then I say the same thing about me and the WS community, so take your pick! Stho002 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Barras: Just to let you know, in the recent discussion you had with Faendalimas about CU policy at Wikispecies, you were being manipulated for a hidden agenda (see the discussion above) Stho002 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Answering a simple question might be the first step towards a discussion, but it isn't one. Furthermore, I'd be surprised if he'd manipulated me with the that... -Barras talk 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Abd: @Billinghurst: @Abd, Above you have said >Yes, "fucked," though it's just a wiki<. I must object to this assessment! While my access to a wiki is of little direct significance to me or anyone else, that is not the only consideration. As I said, people, rightly or wrongly, come to these Wikimedia sites for information, people which include the younger generation who will one day have influence on the world. We therefore have a huge responsibility to ensure that we present solid, accurate and unbiased information. I am not going to sacrifice my integrity for the sake of "getting along with the community". Under Dan Koehls dictatorship, the quality of information on WS is falling again, and people like Faendalimas are being allowed to impose their biases on articles. You should be very concerned about this ... Stho002 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What, "fucked" -- which was your language -- or "just a wiki." Don't sacrifice your integrity, I'd never dream of suggesting it. However, calling others "cretins" and "idiots" is not about integrity. It's about something else.
@Abd: "Just a wiki", is what I referred to (clearly by context). Yes, insults are not very constructive, but equally should not be used as an excuse to divert attention away from the really important issues Stho002 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
As to me being very concerned, the wiki with a major influence on the public is not Wikispecies, it's Wikipedia. And a great deal of my effort is toward improving that situation. It's not going to be improved by attacking Wikipedians. That does not help inform a single reader. It just makes one look, oneself, like an idiot. --Abd (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: Well, Wikipedia is lagging significantly behind Wikispecies for information relating to species, so although Wikipedia may be the first port of call, when nothing of any use is found there, Wikispecies is next on the list. I am not attacking anybody. I am defending myself against attack, the only way that I can. Stho002 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikispecies is the next on what list? In any case, if I take you as sincere, you have no idea of how the language you use is read by others. It is a recognizable disability, and if you don't know how to identify it in yourself and factor for it, you are, as you mentioned above, "fucked." I'm done here, what I write here only provokes you to more, sets up more opportunities for you to get yourself permanently banned. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: Since when is straight talking a "recognizable disability"?? This discussion was never meant to be about me, but you simply refuse to discuss the actual issues, and instead focus on me! You are simply trying to divert attention away from the fact that you are totally incapable of doing anything to stop the Koehl gang from doing whatever they like. Pathetic ... Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan Koehl's geographically biased content removal agendaEdit

On the face of it, it looks like Dan_Koehl isn't actually removing significant content from WS, just category links. But this is not correct! He is manually deleting category pages, after he has emptied the categories using AWB. I had put a great deal of potentially useful information on those category pages. After he deletes them, users cannot even access that information in the page history, only sysops can. At the very least, I should be given time to copy the information over to another site, before it gets deleted. There is absolutely no hurry to delete, as the pages are doing no harm. They are not spam, or vandalism. In fact, they are being removed purely due to the disinterest of Koehl's "gang" to New Zealand! For example, check the history of this category page, before Koehl deleted it. It contained a list of all new species described from New Zealand in 2013. This is of interest to users in N.Z., but is of no interest to Koehl's "gang", so they deleted it! This is a totally unjustified geographical bias and abuse of sysop powers .... Stho002 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


@Reguyla: I have some sympathy and empathy with your predicament. Wikimedia sites are rife with dirty politics and power games by manipulative stewards and others. They will always "resolve" a dispute by supporting the larger faction and oppressing the minority, regardless of who is right or wrong. That (oppression of minorities) is the sad history of the world, which never changes ... Stho002 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


You know exactly what I am talking about. Your controversial edits, which have been mass-reverted, are exactly the reason you are banned there. Meta isn't your personal soapbox, so I've blocked you for a week here to prevent further misuse of this project. Have a nice day, Ajraddatz (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I got an echo notification that you sent me an email but I didn't get anything. Would you mind posting it here instead, so I can read it? Ajraddatz (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, thank you for unblocking me from my user page! Do you really think that blocking me from Meta for 1 week is going to help solve the problem? Anyway, all I said in the email was that I know this is frustrating, but taking the easy option every time isn't likely to help in the long run, and I reminded you that you owe it to future generations to be able to contribute to Wikimedia projects without being obstructed by mobs of control freak sysops. Again (above), you have made an accusation at me, but then you blocked me from being able to reply, which is very bad form. You say "you know exactly what I am talking about", but NO, I do not know what you are talking about. You say "Your controversial edits, which have been mass-reverted, are exactly the reason you are banned there", but where do you get that from? You are either mistaken or are being misled. What "controversial" edits? Why were they "controversial"? Making a vague accusation and then blocking me from reply is very bad form. We need to discuss this. It is complicated. The responsibility is on you, as a steward, to investigate massive sysop abuse. Stho002 (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Just one more comment from me: I am not trying to claim that I am totally blameless for what has happened. At one stage, I was guilty of abusing my own sysop powers in order to try to force format consistency on WS. But, when User:Franz_Xaver called for a review of my admin status, I saw the error of my ways, and I did the honorable thing and immediately resigned my sysop powers voluntarily (as the logs will show). That move should have solved the problem. If I no longer have sysop powers, then I cannot abuse said powers. End of story, or so it should have been, but what followed was a snowball rolling down hill of revenge against me by the WS community, the irony of which is that they have ended up abusing far more sysop powers than I ever did! I hope you agree that "two wrongs don't make a right". Therefore, their ongoing abuses of sysop powers against me are not justified. The only WS crat who understood this (OhanaUnited) got discredited and accused of collusion with me! It has gotten way out of control, and there isn't an end in sight. Sysop powers are not to be used for revenge (punishment), but this is exactly what the WS sysop mob are doing. Stho002 (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I had some IRL things to attend to. I may have been a bit over-zealous blocking you, so I'll explain what I was trying to get across and then we'll move forward from there. Meta has a reputation for being a "troll magnet" - we have ~30 open RfCs on sysop misconduct on other wikis, the vast majority of which are totally false and utter garbage. This is what I am trying to prevent. One of the reasons for this is that stewards are not empowered to regulate sysops except in absolute emergencies or with consensus. What I was trying to say on SN is that we literally are not allowed to use our technical access in those cases. Your request was to ensure that no abuse of CheckUser happened; I assure you that it will not be abused. I'm not particularly concerned with what has happened in the past, in terms of your actions or others, because there are going to be two sides to every story and I don't have time to wade through it more than at the cursory level I already have.
If you have general concerns with current admin behaviour on Wikispecies, then the only course of action here is to start an RFC on the issue and hope that it gains some sort of consensus of the global community. Keep it brief, have a clear solution presented. Continued messages to SN won't do anyone any good. I have, and am continuing to advocate for some kind of body which will be empowered to deal with these cases (global arbcom?), because the status quo is awful and it isn't fair to the cases where sysop abuse is occurring to have such a useless system.
Block removed, and my apologies for that. Please let me know if you have specific questions of how to set up the RfC. Again, that is the only productive avenue to take when dealing with this. But if your only complaint is that the sysops want to use CheckUser to keep you from making sockpuppets to circumvent your ban, well, I don't think that will go far. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not going to bother with an RfC, partly because I have had advice that they are almost never successful (just an empty going thru the motions step). My main concern is just to ensure that the WS sysop mob don't succeed in using me as an excuse for an IP range block which could potentially carry a significant amount of collateral damage, which is what they seem to want, for whatever reason. I trust that stewards will not pander to their megalomaniacal manipulations. Other than that, by continuing to block me from WS, they just disadvantage the project and future generations of people who could have benefitted, in some small way, from my contributions. The lowest common denominator always seems to be able to drag things down for the rest of us. That is unfortunate, but inevitable it would seem. Stho002 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and make complaints about my conduct. You are no longer welcome to use my talk page. I am not going to waste my time continuing to engage with your banter. Have a good day, Ajraddatz (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
And blocked. You can use your talk page to register any complaints you may have. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Final warningEdit

Hello. First of all, please review Meta:Urbanity to review our expectations for behaviour here. Then, please note that this is the last warning I will give you for incivil comments and accusing others of vandalism. Comments like "If you actually stop and think about it, which I'm sure you will not bother to do" are clearly unacceptable on this project. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)