Wikispecies talk:Checkusers/Requests/Dan Koehl

Block in sv.wikipedia

I have observed the CentralAuth of the Dan Koehl and I have noticed that it was blocked in sv.wikipedia apparently by label violations (according to the translator and what I read in their discussion there, so I can be wrong). This is not to be mistrusted, but since we are entrusting access to information as private as CheckUser, it would not be wrong to clarify this matter. Regards. [[File:Alvaro Molina.png|20px|link=]] Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 05:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Sorry if my English is not good.

Yes, I understand that @AlvaroMolina:.

Already in 2005, when I was still an admin myself, i saw tendencies on the en:Swedish Wikipedia of admins starting to use their power in a way that was not the intention, which I wrote about on my user page.

8th of February 2015, I was blocked on the en:Swedish Wikipedia, officially for trolling, after I had criticised the more active 10-15 admins, for acting like an unofficial group, creating false consensus by supporting each other, not respecting NPOV, but acting APOV, not always communicating openly but often secretly with alternative methods than Wikipedia pages, and using blocking and threats of blocking not only as as a tool to protect the project and its users, but also to establish an elite group of power, by means of scaring users to have "right" opinions, and exluding people with "wrong" opinions by blocking. Blocking of registered users has increased lately on SvWp, and the working environment those most admins create for the users, is reducing the freedom of the Wikipedia. Those admins will support each other and be reelected again and again, since they have managed to form such a large number that only a an organised action from Stewards and Meta, or a campaign by the normal users, could liberate the Swedish Wikipedia, something unlikely to happen, since in most cases of conflicts Meta Stewards mostly send such issues back to the local community, where its mostly one individual user against a group of admins, why users migrate to EnWp or simply quit in frustration.

19th of january, 2017, one year later, I was blocked again, against the rules, with the official reason that I made edits against massive objections (the truth it was 2 persons) and minutes later with a second motivation from the blocking admin:

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

I decided to let people outside SwWp get insight what was going on, at m:Requests_for_comment/Swedish_Wikipedia_blocking_policy_violation_and_Administrator_abuse. Later, after I repeatedly claimed the block was violting the rules, a new motivation for the block turned up as: Skottniss was totally appropriate, in line with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Diffs, verifications and any type of evidence for the accusations against me, was never provided.

All this politics has nothing to do with Wikispecies, and does not affect my work here. Or, maybe it does; the negative experience from the hierachical SvWiki have most probably been one motivation to do my best and try to do what I can, to make Wikispecies as democratic, flat organised, and free as possible.

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, there are certain projects where the administrators use their powers as if it were their own project and there were no more people editing, I keep my vote for and I consider that you should not be denied permission just for this matter. Regards. [[File:Alvaro Molina.png|20px|link=]] Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 16:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and concearn, much appreciated. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)