It is believed that this user may be editing Wikipedia under the influence of drugs.
… this time she found a little bottle on it (“which certainly was not here before,” said Alice), and tied round the neck of the bottle was a paper label, with the words “DRINK ME” beautifully printed on it in large letters.[1]
Vendetta against me in de.WP
Jimbo Wales: “I got something better to do than bother with crap like this.”
After joining discussion if Nazi symbols and flags of Nazi Germany should be censored in the German-speaking Wikipedia I have been blocked several times. The first blockage was imposed on December 18, 2007, for “unobjective trolling in the context of NS symbols” (2 hours). I admit that inserting a babelbox with the text “This user likes swastikas” into the discussion wasn’t overly sober but being a dick is no allowed reason to get blocked. So I complained about the according admin and was blocked for additional 24 hours for answering the question what I think why I was blocked. When there are privileged individuals who infringe the rules to ban opinions in order to serve a higher purpose, I concluded they must have a fascistoid disposition. During these 24 hours other admins affirmed my sentence and uttered it is even too mild. Being a narcissistic Wikipedia player I claimed attention from Jimbo Wales. After the ban I expanded my proposal for solution to the demand all admins which spoke out accordingly should get their admin status withdrawn. Additionally I left a notice in the discussion about the proposal to censor Wikipedia that I did make a report to our “Führer” Jimbo Wales in hope he would speak out against this plan. This provocative language earned my another ban of one hour. An IP address started discussion on my user talk page if I offended the German law by using a swastika in my babelbox (in discussions). I again touched upon the fascistoid disposition of some admins. Asked by another admin how I decide—to cooperate productively or to fight against the “fascistoid admin clique”—I replied that productive cooperation is only possible after the fascistoid admin clique is disempowered. The admin misunderstood my answer as if I wanted to be blocked and blocked me for a year. Another member of the tag team blocked me from editing my talk page, too. The content of my user page is replaced by a text stating I were blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. I have always thought a fair trial is required for blocking a real user for such a long period of time.
My guess is that they mainly got perturbed by my repeated declaration that Wikipedia is for everyone and therefore it is for Neo-Nazis and every other imaginable group. Our license doesn’t prohibit them to use our content and our policies don’t prohibit them to become Wikipedians. The idea one could have already welcomed Neo-Nazis, misogynists, child molesters and the like at Wikipedia may be terrifying but this is just a question of likeliness which depends on the quantity of your welcome messages. If you want to change this situation, change the license and our policies but don’t block users for stating their opinion—especially when it is an deduction from our main principles.
The disclosure on Jimbo’s talk page of my naming him our “Führer” caused sensation which missed the point I think. At least the first reactions in the English-speaking world are quite the opposite of what I read on de.wikipedia.org as they don’t worry about Nazis at Wikipedia so much and keep their countenance.[1]
Update: 3. Feb. 2008
After a few months I pressed a charge at the highest court in the German-speaking Wikipedia (abbr.: de.WP). The proceedings were perturbed from the beginning. But after being blocked indefinitely “it doesn’t matter” anyway. Yes, the Arbitration Committee of de.WP showed itself unworthy for decisions of this importance. Ignoring all rulesI appealed the judgement. The committee didn’t check if the blockage against me was in accordance with our rules, but instead it assessed my contributions and came to the conclusion that they don’t want to have a junkie in Wikipedia. The accusations are grotesque: It is said I would refuse to discuss the issues but I’m blocked since 20. Dec. 2007. The fact that I accused ten admins allegedly shows that my charge is unjust. That I don’t show any sign of humility because of my penalties—maybe imposed by a 12 year old—allegedly shows that I am a troll. I have to take action to kick these judges out of court. The next election of the Arbitration Committee in de.WP is in May 2008. --mms (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Charlton Heston: added that he is a human rights and civil rights activist
Max Stirner: I did't improve the article, yet. But I convinced philosophers that Max Stirner “is vital to understanding philosophy”. After reading their importance scale I didn't dare to demand this label of “high” importance[2] but my reasons have convinced them[3]:
Max Stirner This article is at least of mid importance. Max Stirner is the author of The Ego and Its Own for which Karl Marx wrote a critique which he never published. Friedrich Nietzsche never refered to Stirner but Wilhelm Reich did.
Comparison of open source and closed source: changed POV: most Linux distributions distribute proprietary software, GNU is an operating system (not a set of tools), “commercial” isn’t synonymous to “proprietary”, low price is definitely not a key strength of “Linux” but freedom of usage is
