Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

LSLM has been blocked for 3 times for reasons ranging from vandalism to three-revert rule violation to "spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view ". He evaded two of his three blocks. After his last block, he said: "I am proud of being blocked for fighting radical positions that I find absolutely unacceptable. Some administrators should be scrutinized" [1]

And he continues with his disruptive behaviour. He has made several sections to "warn" people about my edits, with blatant or thinly veiled insults. These accusations were unjustified and he couldnt back them up. He thinks anyone who doesnt agree with him is a Nazi and has called Nazi to several editors. He continues to vandalize. He continues to add personal attack sections eventho those sections were removed by several people.

Despite the fact that he has called others racist, he has also made racist comments himself along with insults to Americans in general.

He has also vandalised a talk page, besides other vandalisms, deleting my arguments to replace it with his "personal attack sections".


This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Consistent personal attacks, incivil behaviour and harrassment. Consistent patterns of vandalism and edit waring. Evasion of bans and general disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. "...IF YOU WANT TO LET THESE NAZIS CONTAMINATE THIS PLACE THAT IS GOING TO BE GREAT..."[2]
  2. Same but with vandalism [3]
  3. Same but at AN/I [4]
  4. Almost same [5]
  5. Calling another editor a nazi and "...I leave you here with this pest of Nazis that are infesting Wiki. It is impossible to work seriously in these articles with people of this ilk." [6]
  6. "...I will tell you, from your comments "that person maybe or not a problem" you are another of his ilk...Never in my entire life have I sat at the same table with disgusting Nazis..."[7]. Note: Besides the fact he ended his post with "Veritas", 72.144.177.77 has the same location with LSLM [8] [9]
  7. "Look again at our friends Lukas and Dark T. What a good argument!: The order of the pictures according to "latitude", not alphabetical. My god! What kind of people we have here!. Watch out again, they will not rest. Their mission is clearly important...." [10]
  8. Unjustified "warning" sections about my edits [11] [12]
  9. "I was blocked for calling people like you here Neo-Nazis, all people like you coming from Stormfront were someone has been posting messages to encourage Stormfront Nazis to come here." [13]
  10. This is all he can say when his unjustified accusations are answered: "nother of your big lies my friend. check it again" [14]
  11. Again: "Another of your big lies. Check better" [15]
  12. "...He is a Neo-Nazi..."[16]
  13. "...You are right. But it is the American racialist or just plain racist approach to people, which is an embarrassment for the rest of the world....It is as if Obamas's white ancestry does not exist, in the mind of the extremely simple and profoundly racist American spirit." [17]
  14. This seems to be a POINT violation: [18]
  15. Another "attack section": [19]
  16. Racist vandalism: "People have also called the white race Stupid Whitey or Honky. Also the word Cracker" [20] Note: IP has the same location with LSLM [21] [22]
  17. "...I have said more than once that some (only some I want to leave this clear) Americans, Australians, etc.. think themselves whiter and more European than the European themselves. It may be just because they live in countries that have an intensive history of bigotry and they cannot swallow easily that they are increasingly becoming non-White nations (in my opinion much more interesting for that, but they obviously see it differently). Just travel to any US city. The country is no more "white" than some South American countries, and I could bet my right hand that Uruguay and Argentina are right now "whiter" than the US by all means. It does not matter what their statistics say or how their media want to present them on TV or in the movies. Anyone who knows the country well knows it. Their position is probably one way to steam off their growing inferiority complex(because of their view on white and non-white people). It must piss them off that some South American or even Muslim countries like Turkey are by all means whiter than their countries and nations. It is sad. They may deserve some understanding. A shoulder to cry on. So they come here with their risible arguments: But these are considered white and those not by my uncle! It sounds like a desperate cry to claim their "whiteness" or their "Europeanness" or God knows what....."[23]
  18. "...Unfortunately the term white has been hijacked in such a way by extremists that I cannot understand how people can still use it to classify themselves. There are a lot of people who would be considered white that are ashamed of the term. I am from Europe, and I can tell you that this term is increasingly being used down here almost exclusively in Neo-Nazi circles...."[24] which is a lie, there is no such thing in Europe and his IP is American.
  19. "Do not even respond to Dark T. He makes no sense at all. Just look at his/her comments. Since administrators do not have what it takes to block people like that, at least just ignore people with severe mental diarrhoea.....Dark T. is a troll that defends strange Nazi-like ideas, that are even more extreme than the ones of the Nazis themselves.....let alone the opinions of Nazi-Nordicists that are an insult to intelligence."[25]
  20. Evaded a block: [26], [27],[28],[29]
  21. Evaded a block again: [30]
  22. More vandalism [31]
  23. More proof of his disruptive behaviour can be found. I only listed the ones after 15 December 2006 except for this one:
  24. This is the example of how easily he makes personal attacks to whom he disagrees with. Here, he talks with his former "ally": "He claims that he is a humanist and all that. Do not be fooled. He is a Basque Fascist and a Basque radical. Just read his contributions. Of course anyone can be whatever they desire, but it is good to know people who are editing so mcuh in this place. This is Veritas. I got blocked because of the machinations of this guy too and because I am sincere enough to call things by their name." [32] Note: As explained above, the IP has same location with LSLM.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPA
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Vandalism
  4. WP:BLOCK#Evasion_of_blocks
  5. WP:POINT
  6. WP:3RR
  7. Wikipedia:Harassment


[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]
  6. [38]
  7. [39]
  8. [40]
  9. And many more at: User_talk:LSLM
  10. His blocks: [41] , [42] , [43]


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Lukas19 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. DarkTea 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Just Heditor review 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. This guy is persistently abusive, wages edit wars, is rude on talk pages, circumvents or ignores rules, and is intent on introducing POV bias to articles. He has been blocked before to little effect. I recommend a permanent block. Fourdee 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSLM continues

With personal attacks:

"I knew Dark Nazi Nordicist agenda was behind this again" (edit summary) [44]

and edit warring, namely, reverts without any explanation or contribution to discussion page whatsoever. [45] I suggest a block or taking this to arbitration. Lukas19 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also with sockpuppetry: [46] "Reverting Lukas POV pushing against LSM, Carwill and Behnam" This is clearly the IP of LSLM, but initially he said POV pushing against LSL(M). Unless he refers to himself in third person, it looks like he is trying to make it look like that there is actually more support for his unexplained reverts. Lukas19 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

I will just say a couple of things and that is it. I will not respond anymore. Some of the assertions above are just false. Pay good attention to them. Still, Just make a follow up of this guy (and others of his team). He has had already several problems with users because they accuse him of being a Nazi (an ideology not an insult, although the ideology is not good that it is used as an insult). He has already been in this type of conflict for the same reason with users Alun, Sugaar and Psycohistorian, at least that I know of. They all told him what he is: A Nazi manipulating Wiki for his agenda. You can find all those conflicts in his personal page, although he makes a big effort to hide it all the time, like his friend DarkT.

Plenty of examples you will find also in the white people article, but not only there.

I had problems with him before for the same reason, because I denounce Nazi manipulation in Wiki and will continue to do so although I am thinking on taking a vacation by now. Good luck. I am looking forward to seeing if he and his team fool you again. Cheers. Veritas et Severitas 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view by Maunus

I have not been directly involved in the dispute above but I have had discussions with the User:Lukas19 and I have followed parts of his edit history. The following are my personal opinions gathered from a few encounters with User:Lukas19 and his previous alias Thulean. For example here:Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Does UN have any authority on English Words?.

I believe that user:Lukas19 does indeed seem to have a bias towards a racially defined notion of culture and ethnicity and that he does not take kindly to any editors challenging such a definition. He often allies himself with the kinds of views that serve as a theoretical basis for various white supremacist groups - and while this of course doesn't make him a Nazi it does explain why someone in the heat of a discussion would feel that such a label was not completely undeserved. (an example of such a viewpoint is the viewpoint that he espouses in the discussion referenced above that would ascribe indigenous status to all peoples living in their ancestral homelands, neglecting the quite unsurmountable problems there is with defining such a homeland - It is a keypoint of whitesupremacist and other nationalist agendas to be able to link a population (often genetically or racially defined)to a geographic area to which they then have special rights - here Lukas19 tries to do so by casting aside the UN definition of the word "indigenous" as being irrelevant)

Lukas19's style of argument is monotonous and consist mainly in denying that his opponents have any idea about what they are talking about and that they are out to get him. His stubbornness often wear the patients of discussion opponents thin - this can be confirmed looking through the discussions and talkpages where he has engaged in discussions, a number of normally very calm and collected contributors are worked into a fury by his way of arguing. In my eyes he seems to use attrition and taunting as a weapon which causes opponents to become tired and digress into incivility or worse where upon he starts the administrative apparatus against them. I have seen this done in a similar process against the user:Sugaar. The sheer number of RFC's raised by him against other editors as well as his history of frequent personal disputes with other editors corroborate this viewpoint.

I think that while user:LSLM's behavior is certainly unbecoming and unacceptable and should not go uncommented the particular behavioral history of user Lukas19 should be held in mind when determining how to procede.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. futurebird 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sadly not much to say, there isn't really an excuse for policy violation. Addhoc 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. The comments about Lukas19 also apply to User:Dark Tichondrias, especially on the white supremacist issues. The Behnam 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Without endorsing LSLM's contributary behaviour and failure to remain civil on occasion, the provocative environment these took place in need IMO to be taken into account. Reviewing many of the supposed 'attempts at dispute resolution' diffs given above, my impression is that these serve more as an attempt to establish a trail of 'due process' events, than any meaningful attempt to reach any settlement.--cjllw | TALK 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Lukas19 consistently provokes other editors, and when they respond he launches "litigation".[47][48] He seems to see accusations of personal attacks and vandalism as a way of bullying other editors. He sees PAIN, AN/I and RfCs as a way of censoring editors who disagree with him. While I do not endorse LSLM's behaviour, these policies are supposed to be here to protect people, they are not here to further content disputes or personal vendettas, as Lukas19 seems to think. "Never are Tyrants born of Anarchy. You see them flourish only behind the screen of Law." Marquis de Sade. Alun 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Jeffpw 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Lukas19 is a thoroughly tendentious editor with no interest in WP:NPOV or WP:CIV. This doesn't excuse LSLM's behaviour, but it does provide essential context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. The problem is Lukas (before [User:Thulean|Thulean]). LSLM is kind of hysterical at times but what he says about Lukas is 100% true. In fact I am not feeling like working in Wikipedia since several months ago and won't do it again until this twisted Lukas has been banned for all Eternity. I'm really annoyed and astonished on how the wikibureaucracy fails to see the real problem here and wonder why this structural failure and why hypocrisy ("politeness") is considered more important than NPOV and wikilawyering-harassing with a political agenda. I really can't work in a Wiki where the nazis with suit and tie are the ones who write, decide and harass serious editors (with the active or passive help of administrators and the ArbCom). Continuing to listen to his crocodile weeps is a major error that will eventually destroy even Wikipedia itself, encouraging other elements of his racist ideology to take over the project while excluding the serious free-thinking people. --Sugaar 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.