User talk:Billy Ego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello,

It seems we might have gotten off a bad start. Like I said, Wikipedia is built on compromise, and I believe the compromise I offered in economics of fascism was more than reasonable. None of your citations were removed. We can either talk about it and reach a decision that we are both satisfied with, or we can keep reverting forever. It's your call... Ruadh 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You should notice that the only thing I removed was your Hitler quote, and the only reason for that was because it could easily be misunderstood when read out of context. Hitler also made numerous statements in support of private property and private enterprise, especially farmers and small businesses. As you point out on your user page, he advocated a "third way" approach. The quote may give the wrong impression that he sided with state socialism, or Marxism, or something like communism, when in fact he was strongly opposed to all those things (and any equality-based ideology in general). Ruadh 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not all you removed. You removed the demands on the NAZI program as well. I disagree that the Hitler quote can be misunderstood out of context. He advocated a socialist system where the state directs private enterprise to work for the good of the people instead of being selfish. Laissez-faire capitalism was the enemy and was strangling the population. State control over the means of production is socialism. If anything could be taken out of context it's the Mussolini quote saying that there would be a laissez-faire system. It was not a laissez-faire system except in the begining because Mussolini had to compromise to gain more power. Once he gained more power, he did the right thing and took control over the economy.

Very well then, I will look for other Hitler quotes that we could add in order to clarify his position. "Socialism" is a buzzword that has been used by everyone to mean anything. I'd much rather give a slightly longer but more accurate description, such as "Hitler advocated a private enterprise economy directed by the state to serve the national interest". Remember also that, although Hitler did have economic views, he did not consider them particularly important. Same goes for Mussolini. They were willing to accept any economic arrangement that promoted the good of the nation, as they saw it.

Also, please stop thinking that you could somehow make me go away just be reverting the page over and over again. I am not going away, and I think the compromise I offered is more than reasonable. I'm afraid you will just have to learn to work together with me. Ruadh 08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very relavant that that quote by in the article. Hitler was anti-laissez-faire. It was a socialist economy. I understand that socialism is a somewhat vague term but that doesn't matter. It was called "national socialism" afterall. The means of production were controlled by the people with the Fuhrer as their representative. Billy Ego 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I've decided to adopt your policy that nothing should be removed from the article if it has a citation. I have shortened the quote a bit, however, because I believe long quotes disrupt the flow of an article. I also found a quote of my own which I believe clarifies Hitler's views:

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of his income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family than it would be by a State functionary... In this sense, we must encourage private initiative."^[1]

Notice that I only added a shortened version of this quote into the article. That seemed like the fair thing to do, since I also shortened your quote. I think putting two long quotes side by side would be ugly. Ruadh 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be shortened. It's an informative quote that needs a full statement. You're also deleting other things that are sourced like that both national socialism and italian fascism are essentially opposed to laissez-faire. The source says that is an essential to them. Billy Ego 20:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Fascist Wikipedians 2 Please do not recreate deleted content 3 my two cents 4 Thanks 5 Suggestion 6 Request for Mediation 7 Disruptive editing 8 Fascist category 9 ANI complaint 10 Collectivism 11 Re: "pro-capitalism elites" 12 I like 13 Blocked 14 Blocked 15 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site 15.1 Essay removed 16 Notice: No personal attacks, please. 17 Image 18 Block 19 A question regarding your self-label 20 Blocked again 21 Nazism 22 Mediation request 23 3RR breach 23.1 3RR Block 24 Economics of fascism

[edit] Fascist Wikipedians

A tag has been placed on Category:Fascist Wikipedians, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Category:Fascist Wikipedians is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Category:Fascist Wikipedians saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 09:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again you deleted it without giving me a change to vote or respond. And what are you talking about "material"? It's not the posting of "material." It is the creation of a category. I'm going to create it again. "Article"? What article are you talking about. It isn't an article. What you are saying or whatever rule you're talking about can't apply. Billy Ego 02:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#Category:Fascist_Wikipedians for previous discussion on this topic. -- The Anome 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's permitted to be a fascist wikipedian Billy. Good luck though, I wish you every success. Cloveoil 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Fascist Wikipedians, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Category:Fascist Wikipedians is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Category:Fascist Wikipedians saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. -- ArglebargleIV 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) The category was recreated again, I've tagged it. -- ArglebargleIV 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a vote going on right now so please stop deleting the category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_5 Billy Ego 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The vote is a Deletion review. The article is supposed to stay deleted while the discussion about whether to restore it takes place. Besides, it's a discussion, not a vote. -- ArglebargleIV 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria for "speedy delete" since the content is my username. That content wasn't there the first time it was deleted. Billy Ego 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit recreating the category, I have speedy deleted it again. I have explained why it meets the speedy deletion criteria on the deletion review. If you disagree you are free to ask other admins if they feel it did not qualify for speedy deletion. Different users being in the category does not mean something can no longer be speedy deleted, otherwise almost no category would be speedy deletable. VegaDark 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't even let others review that hangon notice? You're the dictator of Wikipedia? Your claim that a category can be deleted over and over again without a vote or discussion simply because it was deleted once in the past is absurd. And you are going against the grain of the sense of community that Wikipedia is supposed to be. Billy Ego 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are rules about this. Others don't have to review it -- an administrator such as VegaDark has been delegated the authority to apply the rules and delete the category if it is called for. I've marked it for deletion for the third time -- please STOP RECREATING THE CATEGORY while the deletion review is in progress! -- ArglebargleIV 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm of recreating it before the review is over? Look. The review is whether to overturn the deletion. To overturn the deletion is going to require a consensus right? So the deck is stacked against me. There should have been a consensus vote IN THE FIRST PLACE to delete it but there wasn't. It's simply being wrongly speedily-deleted. Billy Ego 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus vote in the first place, during the September 2006 deletion discussion. The speedy deletes follow from that. -- ArglebargleIV 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NO the speedy delete does not follow from that. It is permissible to recreated articles or categories with the same title as long as the contents are not identical. You are not allowed to speedily delete an article just because the name is the same. Billy Ego 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you have done by speedily deleting is shifted the requirement of getting a consensus to those that want to not delete it, when the burden should have been on those who wanted to delete it. What you are doing is scamming me. I'm not some moron who doesn't see though what's being done here. Billy Ego 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not recreate deleted content

A tag has been placed on Category:Fascist Wikipedians, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Category:Fascist Wikipedians is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Category:Fascist Wikipedians saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.

Please do not recreate deleted content while it is under DRV. When the DRV ends, depending on the resolution of the discussion you may be allowed to recreate the category. But until then, you are not allowed to.--tjstrf talk 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the point of the "hang on" if you're just going to delete it anyway? Obivously you're not giving the hangon discussion a chance so what's the point? Billy Ego 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to give a valid reason that the CSD does not apply with hangon. For a recreated page a valid hangon argument would be that it was substantially changed from the previous state. It's not, nor can it be since it's a category. --tjstrf talk 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Think of the insanity of what you're saying. You're saying that a category can forever be summarily deleted from Wikipedia simply because it was deleted once in the past. If that's not true for article names then why would it be true for category names? The contents of the "Category:Fascist Wikipedians" article are NOT identical at all from the first time it was deleted. The contents of that article now is my username. Billy Ego 21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories don't have content in the same sense that articles do, so the name IS the content. The only thing that might make it substantially different would be if you put some detailed message explaining how fascism is different than naziism and the members in the category are not necessarily racists, etc. --tjstrf talk 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, the name is the content. Since the name is different, the content is different. Therefore, it's not subject to speedy deletion. Billy Ego 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's phrase this in the simplest possible manner: In order for it to be avoid being a speedy deletion candidate, a fundamental change in the purpose, subject, or quality of the page must have occurred since the last deletion.

Has your category stopped being a category for the grouping of fascist Wikipedians? --tjstrf talk 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me what policy says that. Billy Ego 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 states:

"Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reason for which the page was deleted. This clause does not apply in user space, to content undeleted per undeletion policy, or if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply." (emphasis mine)

Your category was deleted because it groups Wikipedian fascists. This is the "reason for which the page was deleted" that must be addressed before it stops qualifying for speedy deletion.

Therefore, until it stops grouping Wikipedian fascists, it may be deleted ad infinitum. I apologize that you do not like this, but it is policy. Life sucks sometimes. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What "sucks" is your flawed interpretation of policy. The article is not substantially identical. It had someone else's username in it. Billy Ego 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What possible other way is there to interpret it? Whether your name or another guy's name was in it makes no difference whatsoever to the purpose of the page. If you'd like I can make a post about it on the policy discussion board, or the speedy deletion criteria discussion page. They'll agree with me. --tjstrf talk 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version" it says. Notice there is not an "or" between the two independent clauses but an "and." It doesn't satisfy that duel criteria. It is not substantially identical. Only the title is identical. Billy Ego 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is substantially identical: A category for the grouping of Wikipedian fascists. --tjstrf talk 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with tjstrf. The speedy deletion was clearly in line with policy; I do think that the policy has, in this case, allowed for an injustice to occur, and is imperfect in that regard. But a category with an additional user is indeed "substantially identical" to its the category without that user. If the original deletion had cited a total absence of members in the category, that would be different. -Pete 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my two cents

Billy, I happened upon this discussion, and would like to weigh in. I will summarize my two points here, but maybe you can direct me to a better place - it seems this discussion is occurring on multiple pages. (1) To the degree that I understand your political views, I disagree with them. (2) I think you are correct that Wikipedia policy has been unfairly applied in your case.

Personally, I don't understand why there should be Wikipedia USER categories at all, and I don't know what the policy regarding that is. In short, believe those interfering with your attempts to create the category certainly owe you a better explanation than I've seen them give, and may need to follow a better process, and possibly are simply wrong in what they're trying to do. -Pete 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that and yes there is a place where it is being discussed, in the "deletion review" [1] Billy Ego 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I wanted to thank you for strongly arguing the point about the Wikipedian Fascists category. I am also a Fascist and would like to be able to use this category. Algabal 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this double standard can be overturned. But the cards are stacked against us. Billy Ego 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hello, I've left a suggestion on the DRV page regarding the category. Just wanted to draw your attention to it, I hope it helps. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It does. Thanks a lot. Billy Ego 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/National Socialism. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Disruptive editing

How goes it, RJII? I do hope you are well. Your use of libertarian sources is not helping your cover, however. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from Disruptive editing, which includes reverting for no reason. -- Nikodemos 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm someone named RJII? If that's what you want to believe then I'll play along. But don't think for a second that I don't know that you and Ruadh are the same person. You're making it look like you're someone new coming in to revert things that Ruadh has been reverting. I believe you can get in serious trouble for that. Billy Ego 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like me to start rattling out evidence, just let me know. Billy Ego 03:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making it look like anything. Let me state it right now: I am not someone new to those articles. I have edited both of them in the past. Nor do I claim to have two people on my side. User:Ruadh seems to have not edited anything for a long time. It is definitely just you and me, at least for the moment. If Ruadh were to come back and I supported him, that would be a different story. But since he is not here, the point is moot.

Now, how about we discuss your edits and the reasons for your removal of sourced information? -- Nikodemos 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about you cut the bullshit? Isn't funny how going through the records it can been that Ruadh and Nikodemos can be gone for several days then both show up at the same time? Keep it up if you want more evidence. Billy Ego 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I won't report it if you don't stop fucking with me either. Billy Ego 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. Using threats to avoid discussion of article content, and attempting to intimidate other users. I wonder what you wish to report me for. According to WP:sock, what is prohibited is not the use of multiple accounts itself, but rather the use of multiple accounts to vote twice, to circumvent 3RR, to avoid blocks or bans, or otherwise make it appear that two people exist when in fact there is only one. I certainly don't remember ever editing an article at remotely the same time as User:Ruadh. I looked over that user's contributions, and there seem to be less than 50 of them. Wow. Such an amazingly active sockpuppet...

Again I urge you to move the discussion towards article content and away from personal attacks. -- Nikodemos 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You must think I'm stupid. Let me ask you point blank. Are you or are you not the same person who goes under the name Ruadh? Billy Ego 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has become very amusing. And if I don't answer? -- Nikodemos 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to answer. I already know the answer. But I'd like to see you deny it. I'd also like to see you deny that you have done reversions as both Nikodemos and Ruad on other articles besides the Economics of Fascism article as well. I'd like to see you deny that you've preteneded to be two different people. Can you do it? Billy Ego 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In life, we do not always get what we would like. Let me know when you're ready to talk about article content, by the way. -- Nikodemos 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk about article content to someone who pretends to be two people to revert his doppleganger's changes. Just know that the evidence is so easy to retrieve. Billy Ego 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see Ruadh here? Do you see Ruadh reverting anything at the moment? There is only one person reverting your changes, and that is myself. The reason I am doing that is because you have removed sourced content, including quotes that contradict your POV. I would like to warn you that intimidation will not help your case. -- Nikodemos 04:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need help with my case. You can sure of that. Billy Ego 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: Will you discuss article content or just keep reverting? I'm curious to know. Tip: If you actually discuss content, we may arrive at a compromise acceptable for both of us. As far as sockpuppetry is concerned, you know very well where you stand, RJII. -- Nikodemos 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert. I expect that it is within the rules to revert someone who is using another name to revert back to his version. If I'm sanctioned for too many reverts beause I haven't presented evidence of your duplicity I'll simply provide evidence which is extremely difficult to refute in order to redeem myself. So don't you worry about me. Billy Ego 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps then it will be more acceptable to you if I reverted back to my last version of that article rather than the last version written by User:Ruadh? I will happily oblige. -- Nikodemos 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what you do I'm going to revert it because you are an illegitimate user. Billy Ego 04:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy reverting, then. Another quick question: Do you accept mediation? -- Nikodemos 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will. I'll be happy to present all the evidence there. Billy Ego 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. I am curious how accusations of sockpuppetry could have any bearing on a content dispute, though. -- Nikodemos 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out won't we? Billy Ego 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Enough is enough. If you two wish to bicker on either of your talk pages, that's one thing. But you also now have arguments going on at WP:RCU and WP:AN/I. Enough. You have both made yourselves quite clear. I'm giving this as a warning to both of you. Back off from the arguing on WP:RCU and WP:AN/I. You've both made yourselves clear. Continuing to fill those pages with your arguments is serving neither of you much good. If the arguments on those two pages continue, you will both soon find yourselves with 24 hour enforced cooling off periods. So please, stop it now. - TexasAndroid 18:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a clerk just dealt with that issue well enough at the WP:RCU subpage. He moved the argument to the talk page of the RCU, and asked that it be continued there, not on the main page. Which makes perfect sense. As for more evidence, I'm really not sure what the point of more evidence is at this point. You've made your request. It's now a question of whether the request will be accepted or not. If this goes further, to a RFC or mediation, or such, then it'll be evidence time.

And As I said on Nikodemos' talk, this is not about silencing you two, or preventing you from communicating (on each other's talk pages). It's about you both getting more and more worked up, arguing on pages that are not appropriate places for arguments.

So, in the end, I'm in no way banning you from either WP:RCU or WP:AN/I. If you feel you need to post more evidence at the checkuser page, do so. But please. If you find yourself debating the evidence with him, take it to the talk page there as soon as possible to avoid cluttering up the RCU page with stuff that really does not belong there. - TexasAndroid 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Billy Ego 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble upon a source that speaks positively of fascist economic policies and their long-term effects, and I was wondering two things: (1) would you revert my edits even if I added that source in the article? (2) will you ever be willing to sit down and discuss our differences, or will I have to resort to reverting again? -- Nikodemos 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop using sockpuppets? Billy Ego 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore the fact that the question is loaded and give you a short answer: Yes. -- Nikodemos 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then go for it. Billy Ego 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. First, though, I want to see if we can agree to a principle that I call "quote balance". Basically, it goes like this: When there is a controversy supported by quotes, the two sides should agree to limit themselves to an equal number of quotes. In other words, in our case, we should agree on the number of Hitler quotes on the topic of socialism vs. capitalism that we can add to the article, and split them in half. You get half, I get half. It will not do me any good if you have 10 Hitler quotes supporting your view and I have 12 (and likewise it will not do you any good if you have 12 and I have 10). It will only clutter the page. I want to avoid the situation where you add a quote, then I add a counter-quote, then you add a third quote in response and so on until the whole article is just quotes. We will only ever reach agreement if we are satisfied with a balanced article. -- Nikodemos 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with agreeing to a "number" of quotes. It should be whatever it takes to make whatever needs to be clear, to be clear. I think you want to add Hitler quotes saying that he supported private property, am I right? If you do that then I have to add quotes showing that this property was still to be controlled for social benefit. Just because people are allowed to have private property it doesn't mean that it is a capitalist system. If the state controls the use of that property for social good then it's not capitalism. Billy Ego 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler quotes are a dime a dozen, and I have quite a few. Perhaps we'll just have to see where this goes and trim the quotes afterwards. -- Nikodemos 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascist category

I have nominated Category:Fascist Wikipedians for deletion, as part of a nomination of multiple related categories. You expressed interest in knowing when the category was up for deletion, and I am notifying you as a courtesy. However, you should know that this is not a vote, and any statement that the category should be kept or deleted ought to be accompanied with a reason why, rather than simply saying that you want it or don't like it. --Random832 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI complaint

(copied from WP:ANI)

Even if this is two accounts used by the same person, the timing on the edits is far enough apart that there's no violation of WP:SOCK policy here. There's clearly no WP:3RR and I don't see any sign of attempting to claim an overwhelming consensus of alledged sock accounts or anything.

Merely using two accounts is not a violation; you have to do something with them that would be prohibited if it was one account. Even if this is a sock, they are't doing any such.

Billy, your behavior here appears to be a case of WP:OWN. Please cease and desist. Georgewilliamherbert 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The complaint is that sockpuppets are being used to create the illusion that more than one person supports a particular version articles by reverting to that particular version with the Nikodemos account, the Ruadh account, and the 66.9.*.* account. That's a violation of WP:SOCK. It makes it look like more than one person is supporting that version of the article. It doesn't matter on what the timing is. Some of them are on the SAME DAY. It says in the section "Voting and other shows of support" that "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." What are you telling me to "cease and desist" doing? Billy Ego 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you to cease and desist acting like you own those articles. See WP:OWN

I've been through the history on a couple of the articles; I don't see what you're claiming. Please provide edit diffs for the instances where they're editing improperly. Georgewilliamherbert 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not acting like I own any articles. I don't know what you're talking about. The evidence of what I'm claiming is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nikodemos Make sure to look on the "discussion" page there as well. The impropriety is not that they violated a 3RR rule but that they're using sockpuppets to make it look like more than one person supports a particular version of an article. Billy Ego 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You say:

I'm not acting like I own any articles. I don't know what you're talking about.

Your pattern of edits suggests otherwise.

In response to the claims you made on ANI and the Checkuser case - you misunderstand the sockpuppet policy. There is nothing in the policy or precedents or expected WP account usage which forbids someone from using multiple accounts, as long as the combined accounts don't vote more than once on a vote, commit more than 3 reversions on an article to a preferred version within 24 hrs, or act in concert to try to affect a consensus. "in concert" means "at the same time". These are accounts where there's no chronological overlap.

There is simply no case here, because there are no violations. Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a violation. The policy against using sockpuppets to create the illusion of broaders support is not confined to voting issues. Notice that the section in WP:SOCK is entitled "Voting AND OTHER SHOWS OF SUPPORT." In that section it says: "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." Nikodemoes created the Ruadh sockpuppet to make changes and revert back to those changes when I made an edit. He was also doing the same reversions as the Ruadh sockpuppet with his Nikodemos username (and also with the 69.6.*.* IP). This was using sockpuppets for the purpose of creating the illusion that there was broader support for that version of the article than actually existed. It wasn't multiple people that kept reverting the article. It was one person, Nikodemos. In reality there was no broader support for that version of the article than just him. Anyone who didn't know that he was using sockpuppets would think there was 3 people supporting the reversion. It made it look like I was going against a consensus, but I wasn't. I was only going against him. Understand? Billy Ego 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How many admins will it take to convince you that there isn't a violation here?

I understand what you believe happened. You've been very clear about it. That's not a violation of the Sock policy. It seems odd to go to ANI asking for help, and then reject the answer that you get there. Georgewilliamherbert 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a right to disagree with your interpretation of policy. I think you're wrong about the policy. It's a violation. I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the policy against creating the illusion of broader support than exists applies strictly to voting. Billy Ego 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collectivism

Thanks for the Nazi propaganda catchup on my talk page. However, I can manage without it. MarkThomas 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "pro-capitalism elites"

See Definition of fascism#Robert Paxton and his book The Anatomy of Fascism. -- WGee 00:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism is not even mentioned in that definition. Billy Ego 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I like

Your comment on your user page. Sadly, I fear you are correct, save in one respect. You will not need to wait for a mob to form, such groups are already here. Cloveoil 01:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Fascism. Please be more careful to discuss your changes rather than engage in an edit war. The duration of the block is 8 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for a period of 31 hours for continuing your edit warring across several pages. If you repeat these actions when your block expires, lengthier blocks will result.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "edit warring." I'm editing. I have a right to disagree with edits and change them. This is part of Wikipedia. How are you defining "edit warring"? How do I contest this? Billy Ego 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What's more you reverted the articles to your preferred version then blocked me. You are abusing your power. Billy Ego 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would others making edits not be considered edit warring? Billy Ego 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? "If you repeat these actions when your block expires, lengthier blocks will result."? If you think you can threaten me to prevent me from editing articles you are sadly mistaken. Billy Ego 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When this block expires I'm complaining about you through official channels so you better have a good story. Billy Ego 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that I had no knowledge of your identity as fascist, and I had never editted those articles before today (that I can seriously remember) so "preferred versions" are out of the question. I was merely viewing revert warring between you and others, and especially after you had been blocked for 8 hours today for violating 3RR.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I had already been punished for violating 3RR which was my first violation ever. I have not violated it since and was not "edit warring." What makes you think you can re-punish me for violating 3RR? I feel like any more edits or reversions that I do again you are going to block me for a longer period of time, just like you said, because you will consider it "edit warring." It is my understanding that reversions, changing wording, adding sources, etc is allowed. How are you defining "edit warring." And why are you punishing me again for violating 3RR when I had already been blocked for that? And why were others doing the same general kind of editing as I have since then were not blocked by you? Is it that you had a prejudice because you had seen that I had recently been punished for violating 3RR? Doesn't my slate start clean after I've been punished? Do I now have less of a right to edit than others and have special restrictions? And how can you legally revert my changes if they weren't a violation of the 3RR? None of this make sense. I apologize for blowing up a little earlier because there may be no malice on your part but I can't help thinking that you are in the wrong here. I can't imagine that Wikipedia's justice system would allow this. Billy Ego 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego also recently appears to have done a 4RR on Nazism plus added some personal threats to User talk:Cberlet - contradicting his statement above that this was his first violation ever. MarkThomas 09:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never made any personal threat to Cberlet. What are you talking about? Do you think you can get me blocked by just making things up? Well maybe you can since the Wikipedia justice system doesn't seem to have any ryhme or reason. And I see a mob is already forming to try to oust the fascist. Billy Ego 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Nazi and a faschist, shouldn't you be in favour of the mob beating down whoever is weaker than it? If that's you, then you should succumb to the reign of the mob and stop whining about it, in good faschist philosophical fashion. MarkThomas 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not being penalized for your political views, unorthodox though they may be. The problem is, you were already blocked for violating the 3RR. What that does not mean is "Make sure you carefully stay to three reverts a day from now on." It means you need to find a different way to resolve your problem then edit-warring. We've got dispute resolution, you certainly might wish to try it. In my experience, it works pretty well, so long as each side is willing to hear the other out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you define edit warring? I have been discussing things in the discussion pages, adding references, etc. What constitutes edit warring? How was I edit warring? Are there special restrictions on me that are not on others? Am I going to be singled out again simply because I was blocked for "edit warring" in the past? That would be just as unjustified as this block was, which was because I had been blocked for violating the 3RR in the past. Don't you see where this is leading? It builds on itself, when all I really did was violate the 3RR. Next time I will be blocked for "edit warring" even though I'm not behaving any differently from anyone else, just based on this history of "edit warring" that's being manufactured. Billy Ego 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site

Please remove your political essay from User:Billy Ego, as Wikipedia is not Myspace. Your user page may be considered for deletion otherwise. Sandstein 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that prohibits me from stating my views on my user page. Billy Ego 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:ENC for starters. MarkThomas 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference, one place to see the problem with the essay is: Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?, particularly the limit: "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.". In this case, IMHO the essay is definitely unrelated. So the question hangs on whether it is "extensive". I'm not going to get into that debate, but be aware that people may definitely feel that it is indeed too much. - TexasAndroid 16:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is related to Wikipedia. I work on the fascism articles so I explain what my POV is. I don't know why it would be more helpful if I kept my POV secret. If you'd rather me start another username and hide myself that can easily be done and you'll never know who the fascist is but I don't know why anyone would want that. Billy Ego 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely [[2]] is fully supportive of Billys preference to "help other editors to understand with whom they're working"? Cloveoil 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On that level, I agree, it's quite helpful to know we're dealing with a self-professed Nazi. My father shot people like Billy in a war not so long ago. MarkThomas 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily helpful to use phrases such as "self-professed', which are loaded, as you are no doubt aware. This edit here would seem to suggest that you are perhaps unable to render yourself impartial? "The faschist view of Nazism and Hitlerism will not prevail on Wikipedia. MarkThomas 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)", and that your edits to this users talk page may not necessarily be constructive, given the nature of this users views? Cloveoil 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a NAZI. I'm a fascist. Billy Ego 21:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading your user page, where it says and I quote "I am a fascist, in the classic sense. By that I mean the general philosophy of both the Italian Fascists and the National Socalists (NAZIs)". MarkThomas 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How does that make me a NAZI? Were Italian fascists NAZI's? I'm simply a fascist. I support the fascist philosophy which is fundamental to all forms of fascism. I don't support everything the NAZI's supported nor everything the Italian fascists supported. I support the general foundation of fascism. Billy Ego 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay removed

As you are not willing to remove the essay, I have done it for you. Do not re-add it, or you may be blocked for the misuse of Wikipedia resources for personal purposes. Note again that, per WP:UP, "Examples of unrelated content include: ... Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia. ... Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" ... "If you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site." Sandstein 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is related to Wikipedia. It helps others to know what my POV is. That's the whole point of the blurb. If worse comes to worse, I'll just link to it, internally or externally. Billy Ego 18:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You may certainly link to it externally, e.g. to a blog post that contains this essay. You may not, however, put it on your Wikipedia user page. That includes internal (or history) links, which I have now removed. Note that I am not censoring you; this is a private website and if you don't like its rules you are free to write anything you want elsewhere. Sandstein 18:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll be reporting you to administration for vandalism. The blurb is clearly related to Wikipedia. Billy Ego 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are talking to administration. However, if you would like external review, may I suggest you request it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not confident, however, that you'll receive any other reply than what you got from me. Sandstein 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The administration is not going to condemn someone for upholding the User Page policy, so I think you'll only be sealing the essay's fate if you do make an ANI report on it, but go ahead if you don't believe Sandstein that it's unacceptable.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to clear up a bottom-line misconception you seem to have about our project: We do not exist for the use of political activists. --tjstrf talk 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a political activist in the slightest. It's not like I'm trying to spread fascism in Wikipedia articles. Billy Ego 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice: No personal attacks, please.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: User:Billy Ego. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Where? Who did I personally attack? Billy Ego 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On your userpage, it appears that you are attacking User:Sandstein for his edits, (Particularly the quoted "Administrator", which seems to imply sarcasm) which are currently under discussion. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't meant sarcastically. It seems proper to put the label in a quotes. Billy Ego 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he did the wrong thing and I think I'm allowed to state that opinion aren't I? I'm not insulting him or anything. Billy Ego 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it need to be in quotations, if it's a label (or a title)? You don't say, "Her Majesty", the Queen, you say Her Majesty the Queen. It appeared to be an attack on his actions. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the quotes out. GOD YOU GUYS ARE SO PICKY. YOU'RE DRIVING MY CRAZY. Billy Ego 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And please don't take that as a "personal attack"! Billy Ego 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts...) Thank you, Logical2u, for your intervention, but I do not feel particularly offended. Editors are free to disagree with administrators' actions, even if they are being sarcastic about it. There's a difference between disagreeing with an admin's action and a personal attack on them. Also, there's no policy about not being silly on one's user page (except of course if one is silly at great length, but that's been discussed already :-) So, do put quotes around whatever you want, Billy Ego. Sandstein 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The supposed "victim" has replied, so I withdraw. (And I would laugh at the GOD YOU GUYS thing, because really, it's a horrible truth). Logical2u_{Review me!} 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are we "driving my crazy" Billy? Do you own a "crazy" which we are trying to drive? MarkThomas 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why is making fun of another users inadvertent spelling mistake not a personal attack? What gives with the hate campaign against this user? Cloveoil 13:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I enjoy Billy's posts and want more of them. I was genuinely curious as to what it meant and I see that other editors are too from the comments above. Now I'm off to feed my crazy. MarkThomas 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I had originally made the image smaller because it was simply too large, and really should not be kept at the actual size. While you are certainly allowed to keep such an image, it is much better that you keep the image at a size that is not too large for several screen resolutions. My screen resolution (1920x1200) is just big enough that I can see the whole width, but there are obviously editors who have much smaller screen resolutions and the large white field that the eagle is on would be an eyesore. I was in no way intimidating you before, and I have decreased the size of the eagle to 1000 pixels in width (and I have centered it).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok maybe it is better than way then. I have an unusually large monitor and could see the whole thing. Billy Ego 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ach, zose monitors come big in Ze Reich! Which type do you use BE? I would worry about all those filthy foreign-owned capitalist companies making them. You never know who might be involved. MarkThomas 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, why do you come here to troll this user? Cloveoil 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I chose 1000 as 1024x[can't be bothered to remember] is a common screen resolution. I guess we both have wide screen monitors :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

See also this ANI discussion. Sandstein 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference. This is the original blurb: [3] This is the comprise I made that was deleted and for which I was unjustly blocked: [4] Billy Ego 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, So I can link to the blurb if it's an external link but I can't link to it if it's internal? That's absurd. I'll put in on a web page then and link to it to show what was deleted. Billy Ego 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question regarding your self-label

I am curious about something. You say you are a fascist, but disagree with Hitler and Mussolini on many important points (such as anti-semitism and racism). In that case, why do you still call yourself a fascist? As far as I can tell, the only parts of fascism that you agree with are fascist economic policies - and those policies are not unique to fascism. Why not call yourself simply a supporter of the Third Way, or a corporatist, or something similar? I am asking this because you seem to go through a lot of trouble for the sake of something (namely fascism) that you do not even completely agree with. -- Nikodemos 21:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Racism was not a constitutive element of fascism although a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs." ---Herbert Kitschelt, The Radical Right in Western Europe. The fundamentals of fascism does not include racism. It's just that some fascists were themselves anti-semites. Anti-semitism was popular back then, not only among fascists. Fascism to me is the basic belief that benefit to the community should precede benefit to the individual. The individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the good of society. If they aren't willing, then the state should step in to make sure of that. This applies to individuals as well as businesses. I believe everything should be absorbed into the state, so that there is no real distinction between the state and the private. Most businesses would be privately owned, but at the same time they should be subject to the control of the collectivity. There should be no antagonisms between classes. I believe in one big fascist machine, so to speak, where everyone works together for the common good. Billy Ego 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You say that "fascism to me is the basic belief that benefit to the community should precede benefit to the individual". But clearly, that belief is much older than fascism. Fascists were not the only people - not even the first people - who believed that benefit to the community should precede benefit to the individual. You don't have to be a fascist to believe all the things you listed above (in fact, almost no people called themselves fascists after WW2, even though many people share your views). For the most part, "fascism" is used either as an insult or as a label for a historical movement that existed between the world wars. I do not understand why you wish to keep that label - but most of all, given the extreme negative connotation that the word "fascism" has in the West today, I do not understand why you spend more effort on trying to prove that fascism is socialist than on trying to prove that fascism is not as bad as most people think. -- Nikodemos 01:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this user is being forced to justify their views. Cloveoil 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to get him to "justify his views". On the contrary, I am trying to help him (while indulging my own curiosity in the process, granted). "Fascism" is a highly negative label, and I think this user would have more success on both wikipedia and elsewhere if he reconsidered his self-label. This is particularly true given the fact that he only agrees with some, not all, of the positions traditionally considered "fascist". To put it another way: I've met many people whose views were very similar to Billy's but who did not consider themselves fascists. I am thus curious to know why Billy calls himself a fascist. -- Nikodemos 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As he has already explained, he calls himself that, because that is the group with which he identifies most politically. Would you ask a user why they identify themselves as gay? Cloveoil 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely it isn't the same. Nikodemos is attempting to enter into a friendly and informative exchange of views about Billy's faschist beliefs which, contrary to a statement by Billy above, he does actively deploy in edits and uses that particular POV to make edits, which is of course against WP policies. Therefore I think Nikodemos is acting on behalf of the best interests of WP and attempting to politely encourage this editor to discuss and review rather than simply getting involved in POV fights. I think it could be argued that it's none of your business to seek to interfere with such a sensible thing Cloveoil and indeed to desist from making allegations that Nikodemos is acting against WP's interests when doing so, which he clearly is not. MarkThomas 13:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make that argument, please do so. Cloveoil 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On another note, before this whole block issue gets resolved, we can talk on your talk page about any page edits of mine that you object to (and/or any page edits of yours that I object to). -- Nikodemos 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again

You appear to have considerable trouble understanding that your user page is not for extensive material unrelated to Wikipedia, such as quotes (these belong in Wikiquote). You are blocked for a week this time. Feel free to go on all you want about your politics somewhere else, but not on Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see me talking about my politics? It's deleted. Can't you see?! There is not even a link to it anymore. What is your problem. You're abusing your power. Disciplinary action needs to be taken against you. Billy Ego 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the numerous quotes by Mussolini et al. are the problem. They are unrelated to Wikipedia, and your user page is not for collecting quotes (see Wikiquote for that). Your political POV is adequately represented by the boxes at the top of the user page. Sandstein 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard that you had a problem with the quotes. You need to realize also that WP:UP is simply a guideline. It's not a "policy." You're taking the guideline to an extremely unreasonable limit. There is nothing wrong with having a few quotes from famous people on my userpage. Billy Ego 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You never gave any prior warning about the quotes. Apparently you think my userpage should be exactly the way you personally want it. I think that petty power you have is going to your head. Billy Ego 13:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Billy agrees below to not restore the material (for now) and to pursue dispute resolution on the issue. IMHO no real reason for him to stay blocked with that promise in place. Request handled by: TexasAndroid 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support unblocking. (please Sandstone don't block me for saying that) --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator (and left-leaning libertarian to boot!) I am uncomfortable with this block. I can certainly see why Billy Ego wishes to label himself a "facist" in areas such as economics and understandably wants to be able to distant himself from the racism inextricably associated with it throughout its history. Editors will always enter disagreements with other editors and if Billy wants to explain how his ideology (no matter how unpopular it may be) shapes his point of view, then it can be justified that the controversial paragraphs on his userpage definitely falls under the goal of user pages which is "to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia". I can also see why you have blocked because others may try to point to your user page as having set a precedent of misusing user pages for political soapboxing. However, all said, Wikipedia:User page is indeed a guideline and not policy -- as such, I do not believe that constraining what you can and cannot have on your userpage regarding your point of view is a decision that can be made by any one administrator -- it is up to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to set such limits. I'll be willing to unblock you, providing you do not restore the removed edits to your userpage until you have filed a request for request for arbitration and the matter has been settled. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Unblock me and I'll do the arbitration thing, and not put my blurb or the quotes on my user page until a decision is made with that. Thanks. Billy Ego 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I randomly stumbled across this, and this looks like a misuse of power to me. Note that I did not say abuse, as I don't feel that this was intentional. Everyone has the right to express their POV on their user pages, and no one has the right to silence it short of racism and pedophilia. I was ready to see another case of the admin doing the right thing, and the policy violator making unfounded claims, but when I look at the diffs I see an admin removing perfectly reasonable userpage material and blocking the user. If this user is a fascist, he has the right to say that, and to quote other fascists. It is just like a Christian user quoting Jesus, or a conservative user quoting Bill O'Reilly. Fascism has negative connotations in the minds of many, but that does not give an admin the right to block or remove quotes. There is no Wikipedia policy saying that fascists aren't allowed to edit the encyclopedia, or that they are the only people not allowed to express what POV they have and why on their user page. This is not enforcement of policy. This is censorship. This is crossing the line. -- The Hybrid 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazism

You are repeatedly and totally ignoring the consensus on Nazism and your edits are complete POV, which I am reverting. This is allowed in Wikipedia and so you are welcome to try - I will in turn defend my edits. Given your recent block history I wouldn't expect sensible admins to give you much of a hearing frankly. MarkThomas 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're reverted like 5 times today. I reverted 3. My recent block was not for reverting. Ok, if this is the way you want it.... Billy Ego 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will refer to your threat in the discussion on 3RR. Also to the fact that instead of defending NPOV on Wikipedia you are busy count-checking your reverts as part of an obvious campaign, and factoring in your block history to try to influence admins. MarkThomas 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I made no threat to you. I gave you an opportunity. I told you I would allow to revert back your 3RR violation, and I wouldn't report you if you did that. But, you choose not to. So, I'm reporting you. Billy Ego 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nazism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hope this helps resolve some issues.--Cberlet 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR breach

You are currently in violation of the three revert rule. Please cease from reverting. El_C 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Billy Ego 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

3RRreport submitted here. El_C 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Obviously it's not a violation. Billy Ego 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Block

You've been blocked for a WP:3RR violation on the article Nazism. Note that undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time, [5], [6], [7], [8], is in fact covered by the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Note that edit warring in general disrupts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. When you return to editing after your block, please attempt to work out differences of opinion through discussion. Jkelly 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken. It's clearly not a violation. [8] is retaining the same meaning as was there before but just making it more explicit. A "capitalist" is an "owner of capital." There is no way it can be construed as a revert. I understand that you are busy doing your adminstrative functions but please take more care next time in evaluating things. I request an unblock immediately. Billy Ego 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed "major capitalist" twice; I know what I meant, and I disagree (the State could own capital). Regardless, it was a revert. El_C 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing something is not a revert when you replace it with something else. Billy Ego 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I, myself, have blocked countless users for doing just that. El_C 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, someone needs to set you straight on this. Billy Ego 20:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to raise the issue through whichever channels you see fit. El_C 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't need your permission to do that. Billy Ego 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The fourth revert, which is the one being pointed at as needing further examination, follows this sequence of events:

1. User:El C adds "capitalists" [9]
2. User:Billy Ego removes "capitalists" [10]
3. User:El C re-adds "capitalists" [11]
4. User:Billy Ego removes "capitalists" [12]

This is an explanation of the block, not an evaluation of it; another admin should look at your unblock request. Jkelly 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at what "capitalists" was replaced with. First this: [13] then this [14] That doesn't constitute reversion, but two different changes of changing of wording in an attempt to make things more accurate, neither of them being reversions. "Capitalism" has two meanings. One is a owner of capital. The other is a supporter of capitalism. I was intending to clarify that "capitalist" in the sense that it was being used was not referring to a supporter of capitalism as a system but simply one who owns of capital. To block me for this is unjust, and to claim it is a reversion is dead wrong. Billy Ego 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of fascism

I have attempted to write a consensus version that combines text from both your version and mine, but you keep reverting without discussion. Here is some useful information.

• This is my version: [15]
• This is your version: [16]
• And this is the compromise that I propose: [17]
• This is the difference between the compromise and my version: [18]
• This is the difference between the compromise and your version: [19]

Notice that your version deletes 6 attributed sources that exist in the compromise version: ^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]} You have given no explanation for their deletion. In fact, you have not commented on my proposed compromise at all, except to accuse me of removing sources you consider important. I have listed the sources you removed. Now, please do the same and list the sources I removed. Then we can work out a better compromise acceptable to both sides. Or we can keep reverting until one of us gets bored. Your choice... For my part, I honestly want to reach a compromise with you. Yes, we've had our conflicts in the past, and that makes cooperation more difficult than it should be. But give it a chance. -- Nikodemos 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to respond? -- Nikodemos 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're deleting things that are sourced. So I'm putting them back in. Billy Ego 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are reverting. And through your reverts you are deleting the six sources I listed above. I want to reach a compromise with you, but I can't do that if you don't even tell me what you want. Tell me what I am deleting or what you don't like about the compromise I am currently proposing. -- Nikodemos 19:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You started out deleting sourced things while adding your own things. You know exactly what you're deleting. That's what I opposed you deleting it, because it's sourced. I don't see any reason to "compromise" if by compromise you mean allow sourced things to be deleted. Delete unsourced things if you want but not sourced things. The reason I am reverting away your sourced things is because you started this by deleting sourced things in the article. You should go back to square one and add sourced things instead of deleting sourced things in the process. Billy Ego 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So now you are here trying to force me into a "compromise" when there needn't be one of the type you describe where we delete sourced info. Simply allow others to put sourced info in the article and you can put source info in the ariitcle too. Billy Ego 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be deleting sourced info. That's the point. I want to create a version that includes both your sourced info and mine. That's why I kept asking you to tell me what you wanted included in the article. See WP:Assume good faith. Now I went back and tried to figure it out myself, and added back in the things I had removed in my previous edit. Next time please tell me what your objections are, rather than assume I can somehow read your mind. -- Nikodemos 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: The most recent compromise version now includes all your sourced information. There is no longer a justification for you to revert. -- Nikodemos 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)