Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel

IP numbers used:

24.45.99.191 (optonline.net — broadband provider)
65.125.10.66 (tcius.com — marketing company)
66.2.156.* (10, 27, 36, 38, 48, 69, 100, 123) (algx.net NY dialups)
216.99.245.* (139, 153, 154, 170, 171, 184, 188) (algx.net NY dialups)

Also possibly User:216.108.215.163 and User:66.245.19.157? From ViP: "Repeatedly defacing Jew. -- The Anome 15:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

Basic Info

Regarding Paul's fondness for reversion wars: check Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls for advice on dealing with anon users who grossly violate the 3 reversions in 24 hours policy, with abusive talk - David Gerard 08:06, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

More psychological projection on David Gerard's part: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&limit=50&offset=50&action=history And typical lying hypocrisy!-PV

I, Infrogmation, have been having a conflict/annoyance with an unlogged in user going by the name "Paul Vogel", User_talk:24.45.99.191 (contributions ), apparently the same person as User talk:65.125.10.66 (contributions ) or at least sharing an agenda. The Turner Diaries article has repeatedly been edited to try to look like something other than the neo-Nazi fantasy of global genocide which it is; problems with other "white power" related articles. May be related to earlier disputes over Cosmotheism. -- Infrogmation 05:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are always at least two sides to any dispute, and I always do try to always maintain a Wiki NPOV in any such articles of interest to me. I have never denied that the "Turner Diaries" wasn't just a "Neo-Nazi fantasy of non-white genocide", whatsoever, which it certainly is, but, only over some few particulars that did not reflect any Wiki NPOV.

Paul Vogel a.k.a Needle, as he sometimes calls himself, is a persistent and malicious pest who is here only to promote his odious neo-Nazi ideology while ignoring all the basic standards of Wikipedia, insisting that he and he alone has the only objective view of his pet topics, and attacking anyone who disagrees with him as a "Jewish Marxist PC bigot" or worse (see talk:Cosmotheism, wherein he implies that anyone who disagrees with him is suffering from mental illness). Naturyl, who apparently knows Vogel quite well, made several very accurate predictions about him (on talk:Pantheism, if you can sort out the incoherent mess Mr. Needle made of the page), and all of them have come to pass, except the one about Needle being permanently banned from Wikipedia, as he has been from every other website in which he has participated. Since months of discussion have not succeeded in teaching him the basic norms of Wikipedia -- NPOV, Wikiquette, or even basic layout and formatting -- he should be blocked on sight whenever he pokes his head out from the rock under which he lives. --No-One Jones 12:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Paul Vogel's latest manifestation is as 65.125.10.66 - David Gerard 16:58, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Stop mis-redirecting the NPOV article, below:

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs."

Comments from Vandalism in Progress

"David Gerard" is a typical lying hypocrite and pov bigoted political censor! -PV http://www.cosmotheism.net

IMO User:24.45.99.191 User talk:24.45.99.191 contributions has passed POV problems in asserting his neo-Nazi agenda and revert wars and crossed into vandalism. -- Infrogmation 21:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What you falsely call "apologist" is actually just the Wiki NPOV based upon the objective facts. I only reverted or edited to make the article NPOV and factually accurate.

Kevin Alfred Strom, on the National Alliance's white separatist radio program American Dissident Voices, defined the difference between white separatism and supremacy this way:

"A supremacist—of whatever race—is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races—since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs." [7]

He's back and hitting every one of his pages with the same agenda he got banned for. - Texture 22:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why do you want to ban or censor for my upholding of the Wiki NPOV? Curious.

I told you folks months ago (when he first showed up) that this waas going to happen, but no one would listen, so I left the wiki. As I mentioned then, I'll be back when he is banned. - Nat

Well, Nat, aka, [real name removed], you are up to your usual SSEE censorous bigotry and lying hypocrisy, eh? I guess that your "psycho-active" drugs were completely ineffective, afterall, and they still have not given you any actual "personal integrity", and they never would nor could.

Such is life!

Best regards,

Paul Vogel aka the NEEDLE

My main problem with this user is not so much with the content he has added to pages (my threshold for tolerance of opposing viewpoints is high enough to let him slide under it, even though I disagree strongly with his opinions), but rather with the insults he has repeatedly flung at other Wikipedians. On more than a dozen occasions, he has refered on talk pages to other users as "Marxist-PC bigots," "lying hypocrites", and "SSEE" (an acronym he has apparently coined himself, meaning "Selfishly Subjective and Egotistical Egoism", which he has used on other websites before). He should be re-banned not for his edits, but for his repeated (and repetitious) insults. Andrewlevine 03:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure Andrew. You don't seem to have any "main problem" with other Wikipedians, like David Gerard, etc. ad nauseum, falsely accusing me of being a "Nazi", or of being a "racist", or of being "anti-semitic", etc. etc.

I assume you can provide references to me saying all of those, then?

It is quite obvious that you are a "hypocrite", Andrew, in your "main problem" with me, as you call for my banning, only, which is the point.

Other people keep reverting your edits because you spam them all over the place without regard for appropriateness or what makes a coherent sentence in English. Is grammar now Marxist-PC Bigotry? - David Gerard 17:27, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, my providing links to any appropriate articles is not SPAM, whatsoever, and this is true whether in your POV happen to think so or not. Coherent sentences or grammar have never been any issue, but, is merely just another "straw-man" or "red-herring" arguement of David's and of which is quite typical of him. What else isn't new?

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

David and his cabal of Marxist-pc pov bigots keeps mis-directing the NPOV article on white separatism and many others:

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs."

wikiquette

You all need to understand that wikiquette is not one way. Everytime you mistreat Paul, you justify an error on his part. It is only when you are kind, polite and welcoming, and remain unsuccessful in cultivating the "problem user" that you have any legitimate complaint, IMO. I have always gone out of my way to be polite to Paul, and have found a great deal of success, and a minimizing of negative edits. I suggest you take the plank from your own eye, before removing the mote from Pauls. Sam Spade 21:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

With respect, Jack, I have tried to be reasonable and polite and welcoming, and did not find it successful. I appreciate the fact that you've been able to, and hopefully you can continue to resson with him. It seems that my role in this will simply remain that of trying to enforce NPOV through my edits and endure his calling me a PC Marxist. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:43, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

So long as you strive to be as inclusive and non-partisan as possible, rather than defining "NPOV" as your POV (as I'm sure Paul assumes) then I think thats great. I don't want you to take me the wrong way, I have seen evidence of vandalism from Paul (blanking of pages) and complained about it myself. On the other hand, I have seen Paul make a good edit, and then it be reverted with the edit note stating it was "vandalism" (you were not involved in the incident I am refering to, BTW). This sort of thing gives him no small amount of justification. I must say, IMO there is no shortage of "PC marxists" here or in so many other places of learning, and from the POV I have seen in some places (particularly areas of politics or religion) on the wiki I can understand why Paul would choose these particular accusations. Why he levels them at you, or other specific individuals I can't say, not knowing enough of the particulars. Sam Spade 23:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam,

Here are some of the "particulars", some of which Bcorr "erased" to cover his own tracks and lying hypocrisy!:

? Moroccan Cuisine

Wouldn't it be easier to make the real edit in the first place? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote was accurate. What I replaced was somewhere on the scale from culturally niave to racist. I was not insulting. I did not say "filthy, lecherous Westerners". You reverted. You could have done the edit you suggest I do. You have corrected me but you have not corrected Wikipedia. If you are concerned about Wikipedia then you should remove the pre-exisiting inaccurate insult. Otherwise please explain the motivation for your action.

I don't monitor others' Talk pages. Reply to mine, please.

Paul Beardsell 02:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My point is simple. If there's a problem, correct it. Adding facetious text in in attempt to get someone else to fix the problem you found is not generally productive. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To make my point more plain: Imagine if on the American Cuisine page there was the equally misleading comment Kentucky Fried Chicken is usually eaten at brothels. Paul Beardsell 03:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and that was replaced by KFC is sometimes fed to North African tourists at so-called restaurants.

Then I would change it without adding something about overfed Americans eating ersatz Southern cuisine at a multinational fast-food chain... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In reply: You also had the opportunity but did not take it. The reversion was unnecessary policing. With the same effort you could have made the constructive change you want me to make. You have blindly crossed the street to correct a jay walker. Paul Beardsell 03:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whatever -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:17, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To make your point about how I could act more constructively you reverted a Wikipedia article to an inaccurate version. That's "whatever". Paul Beardsell 03:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the record, my change was not of the above character, but was unemotive and factual. What BCorr is objecting to (I think) is the phrasing of the comment I made about my change. The actual edit is itself difficult to object to as it is both unemotionally phrased and accurate. It is not "facetious", as alleged. View the moroccan cuisine version log and diffs. Paul Beardsell 03:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have copied the above text to the Moroccan Cuisine talk page. Paul Beardsell 03:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

? Paul Vogel rants again

"A supremacist [snip] at all costs." STOP MIS-REDIRECTING THIS NPOV ARTICLE TO A MARXIST-PC POV. THANKS! User:24.45.99.191

We will continue to revert your edits to remove your POV about what you claim are differences between white supremacists and white separatists. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) It is NOT my claim, it is the actual NPOV distinction between them, and whether your own POV actually thinks there is one or NOT!

"A supremacist [snip] at all costs."

STOP MIS-REDIRECTING THIS NPOV ARTICLE TO A MARXIST-PC POV. THANKS! User:24.45.99.191

We will continue to revert your edits to remove your POV about what you claim are differences between white supremacists and white separatists. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is NOT my claim, it is the actual NPOV distinction between them, and whether your own POV actually thinks there is one or NOT!

"A supremacist [snip] to avoid at all costs."

(text added by Paul Vogel, abridged by BCorr)

? Paul Vogel reprise

Thanks! Glad to see a sysop hard at work! Perl 02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We aim to please! I'll just redelete it and remove it from Vfd. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Hard at work" only preventing any truely NPOV articles from actually ever seeing the light of day! What a cabal of Marxist-pc POV bigots and censors!

Maybe I'm just a Wikisupremacist...or is that Wikiseparatist? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, neither, just a wiki F-head! That's only being objective and accurate and with a typically here, "Wiki NPOV!" LOL! :D (added by Paul Vogel)

That there are two words might suggest there is a difference in the meaning between them. What does the DICTIONARY say. Ah! [That I can see a difference does not make me a supporter of either concept.] Paul Beardsell 02:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[and it is that I comment on this page that makes me point that out.] Paul Beardsell 03:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He can format it but he can't reply to it. Paul Beardsell 04:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is my reply, oh snippy and demanding one: White separatist-- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm happier now. Nice article. (pat). Snippy is a bit rich from you. (slap). Paul Beardsell 04:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the heat in this discussion could have been defused by an admission early on that a difference between separatism and supremacism is acknowledged but that a NPOV form of words was being sought. Now that difference is acknowledged. That is really all the non-supremacist separatists (whether you believe their position is tenable or not) wanted. It seems to me that some of the unseemly language, however regrettable, was provoked. Paul Beardsell 04:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for honestly taking my case, Sam aka Jack!

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

PS--Treat someone with such "dis-respect", as BCorr has done with me and with others, ie. "whatever", when they had been objectively "proven wrong" or were shown to be "unreasonable", and then you will be only treated the same in turn.

Note: Much of the above is from my current talk page. Each place above where it says [snip] -- which I assume is what Paul is referring to that I erased -- is the same Strom quote that Paul kept inserting in articles. He put it on my talk page and I deleted the majority of the quote while leaving thebeginning and the end. I don't want to have any more copies of that Strom quote floating around than necessary. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to have any more copies of that Strom quote floating around than necessary. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with that Strom quote, BCorr, and why wouldn't you want it more well known? Maybe because it is true and undermines your own false POV beliefs?

Paul Vogel is right. BCorr and many of the other editors at Wikipedia have been reverting his edits, based only on their own leftist POV, verses Paul's factual and objective and NPOV edits. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your bigoted censorship of Paul Vogel! - 216.99.245.153

Seeing as 216.99.245.153 just tried refilling Cosmotheism with Vogelisms, may I suggest a quick reread of sock puppet. - David Gerard 12:53, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Since David Gerard here is such a lying hypocrite, I do suggest that all others here do a quick re-read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot and political correctness.

That kind of direct attack does not serve your arguments here. - Texture 19:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree! David Gerards' "direct attack" of sock puppet only provoked a similar response in kind!

As I said on Talk:National Alliance:

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:

There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, obvious sock puppetry, etc.

By the way, why don't you ever sign your posts to talk pages? - David Gerard 19:55, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

We all know, David, by your own "actions" and "censorship" and "biased bannings" and "lying hypocrisy" that you are indeed posting with such a POV verses a Wiki NPOV in mind during your posts and editing!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575

What else isn't new?

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:

There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

Or, #3, all of the above, as there has not been any "fair" disagreements about what I have written, as what I had written was only based upon the actual NPOV facts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575

The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

I AM well aware of what NPOV SAYS and MEANS, and that is WHY I am so DISGUSTED with some of the biased POV EDITORS here, that do SAY one thing BUT only DO quite ANOTHER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575

Their ACTIONS DO SPEAK much LOUDER than their WORDS!

Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, etc - David Gerard 16:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do consider that not being such a "lying hypocrite" would actually give you some "personal integrity", and that would likely create the desire in people with actual personal integrity to "play better" with you, David Gerard. :D

Allegations

The allegations placed on the request for comments page are accurate, as is Pauls claim of being censored. This is a perfect example of the "official" wiki POV. Being a communist or an anarchist is aok, but a nazi or a racist is unnaceptable. Thats BS. Having a diversity of editors is one of the best ways to ensure NPOV. The important thing is that we utilize citations, verifiability, and proper wording "some people believe X, for ABC reasons, see [reference] for more information" etc... Placing only one POV in an article, and passing it off and NPOV truth is again BS. In conclusion, I have seen Paul make numerous quality edits, as well as numerous crappy edits and even a few acts of vandalism. But the truth is, he is getting steadilly better over time, you all just didn't know him way back when he started ;) I see a potential editor in Paul, and definitely a source of non-"offical wiki POV" to counterbalance things with. Additionally, he is likely the most knowledgable (from what I have seen) out of all of us when it comes to the pages he chooses to edit. He isn't messing about on communism, I can tell you that ;) Lets try hard to lead by example, so that anybody, regardless of how "wrong" their POV is, can still edit here. Sam Spade 21:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Examples of when I am "right"! :D

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem

And here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.45.99.191

Block

Given Vogel's continued trolling I think it's necessary to block his IP addresses permanently AndyL 02:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Block YOURSELF and YOUR OWN CENSOROUS POV ILK!

Given AndyL, and his "ilk" of "lying hypocrites" continued calls for banning and censoring anyone that does not have ONLY his own "ilk's", pov, maybe he and his own "cabal" of censorous and "lying hypocrites" should be banned and blocked permanently from the Wikipedia Project?-PV

I think calls for bans or blocks can be wrong. But I think comments like [9] yours at Talk:Holocaust that call down blood curses on people who you see as enemies turn this project into a nasty and cruel place.

On the contrary, you are just taking the comment out of context-PV:

"As is usual, such Wiki "no personal attacks" and such "no more than

 + 3 revert" policies only apply to "others" and never to yourself and 
 + your own "ilk". The usual "Double-Standard".

 + Obviously, the only ones being "blood cursed" are only  
 + those that actually are "lying hypocrites" and that are  
 + always censoring the TRUTH. 
 +  
 + "HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is?  
 + You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth.  
 + A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"  
 +  
 + I stand by EVERY WORD I SAID, and if the shoe fits, you do wear it well! :D"-PV

I understand you are upset, Paul, but I think your comments are more out of line than those of the editors who are reacting to you.

That only proves your own bias, as my comments were the result of their censorship and lying hypocrisy and slanderous false personal insults.-PV

You have successfully inflamed an opposition (your actions suggest to me that you wanted an opposition) and it seems odd to me that you would now blame them for their emotional reactions which you seem (in my estimation) to actively provoke.

Since when should ANY factual alternative povs "actively provoke emotional reactions"? You are blaming me for their "negative emotional reactions" to the TRUTH?-PV

Are you unaware of your effect on others? I grant that some people have said rude things to you, but have you not seen your comments that incited them?

Again, since when should ANY factual alternative povs "actively provoke emotional reactions"? You are falsely blaming me only for their own "negative emotional reactions" to the TRUTH?-PV

 I think this calls for serious introspection from everyone involved, you included. Jwrosenzweig 15:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The factual and objective and NPOV TRUTH is SACRED and it should ALWAYS come FIRST before ANYONE's own selfish and pov "negative emotional reactions", or before ANY "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" and most especially within any TRUTHFUL and factually accurate and objective and NPOV ENCYCLOPEDIA, does it not?-PV

PS-Evidence? Right here:

"User talk:AndyL From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Andy, why do you keep using different login names? You know you can always sign into different computers with the same name, if you know the password? john 03:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Nice work on James Gregor by the way, if only for the way it'll almost certainly shut up the people who've been citing him. On the other hand, strikes me as a bit POV. The entire article, as it stands now, is about the guy's earlier career. The fact that he has since become a relatively well-respected (at least in certain circles) political scientist at Berkeley, worthy of serious reviews in the Journal of Modern History, and so forth, and that most of the stuff mentioned came from very early in his career, ought to be mentioned - I don't think that makes it any less of a condemnation of the guy, assuming it's true. john 03:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should excuse the guy. The early racist stuff should be talked about. I think it should then say something about how in recent years, he's kept pretty quiet about that part of his past, discuss his more recent work (which, since the 70s at least, seems to have been devoted to promoting his idiosyncratic views on fascism - which he seems to rather like, in general), and call it a day. john 03:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was going to say that we should mention it much as we ought to discuss William Rehnquist's pro-segregationist past (including writing a brief for Justice Jackson expressing his opposition to school desegregation while the Brown case was being discussed), but then go on and talk about the rest of his career. Unfortunately, as you can see, the Rehnquist page is pretty astonishingly terrible for such an important person. john 03:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, my "Stalinism (as an extension of Marxian socialism)" comment was meant to summarize Arendt's views on totalitarianism, and specifically the relationship of Nazism to socialism. She sees Nazism and Stalinism as similar as a result of convergent evolution - that is, Stalinism evolved out of socialism, and Nazism out of 19th century anti-semitic racism - but not of common origin. That was the point of the comments, although I must say that Stalinism, however detestable it was, and however much of a distortion of Marxist principles, was certainly an ideology with pretty clear and traceable Marxist roots. john 04:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Such detail belongs more in a discussion of Arendt or of totalitarianism, anyway. john 04:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this guy is unbelievable. I'm astonished that anyone gave him tenure, or is willing to review his books in serious journals. john 05:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, when moving pages, you should use the "move page" feature, rather than cutting and pasting. Cutting and pasting makes the article history much harder to get at. If there's already stuff at the older site, you should ask an admin (I'm one) to delete the page you're moving to (assuming there's no significant history there). john 05:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Gregor thing is pretty hilarious. It's so wonderful that the libertarian right idolizes this Janus book because it "proves" that fascism is leftist, without realizing that Gregor is a fascist. john 05:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's April the 2nd in some countries - and 7pm UTC - so no more april fools. Secretlondon 19:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand that. You've been doing a goog job salvaging it. Articles of this nature seem to be proliferating at an uncontrollable pace, though. 172 06:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Table of contents [showhide] 1 Fascism edits should be moved

1 White Separatist 2 Quickpolls 3 preventative 4 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 5 message 6 Hardial Bains

Fascism edits should be moved I'd like to point out that socialism and fascism edits should probably be moved to Socialism and Nazism, since that page was set up specially for that topic. Please move them there, Thank you! Kim Bruning 22:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Kim Bruning 22:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Hi AndyL, good to meet you. Nice work on the facism and socialism section of facism. Well-balanced, clear, and to the point. Tannin 22:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

White Separatist I don't mind a request for protection one bit. Heck, I'll thank you! Get those silly POV edits off my RC patrolling. :) Fennec 03:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think a block on the anon might have served us all more. But I cannot blame you for your action as the page was underseige to some extent. I just doubt this protection will solve the problem as Sam Spade (who seems to be sympathetic to some of the anon's views) just moved the dispute to Racialist see Talk:Racialist for the debate which he lost. thanks. GrazingshipIV 21:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Quickpolls I'm afraid I can't vote in a quickpoll for another week or so yet, due to seniority reasons. - Fennec 03:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You need to sign your Quickpoll creations. But I don't think we need to do that for anons. RickK 03:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I redirected the Rhodesia to the Zimbabwe entry because it ought to be a section with its own heading in an entry on Zimbabwe history rather than a self-standing entry. I've never seen another encyclopedia published after 1980 with an entry on Rhodesia. The Rhodesia entry in every encyclopedia I've seen, from Britannica to Encarta, merely reads "see Zimbabwe." So, my redirect stemmed from technical and organization concerns rather than concerns pertaining to the content in that particular article. However, I'll integrate the content before the redirecting the article next time so that my rationale isn't misunderstood. 172 03:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Nominations for adminship, where you were nominated for admin. 172 04:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please let me know when you're done with Fascism and Communism. The stuff you've moved to Anti-communism makes little sense in that context, but I see that you're still moving things around and making edits, so I'm not going to get in the way. I'm trying to put an end to Reaction to McCarthyism, which seems to have become little more than a dumping ground for POV texts, by moving the salvageable parts to McCarthyism and Anti-communism. Diderot 11:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your articles on communsits of China, Korea, Vietnam: unfortunately I am of little help in these issues. Mikkalai 17:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

preventative My Osford Advanced Learner's Dictionary lists preventative as a (not preferred) alternative of preventive. I guess you can explain this for a foreigner like me? ;-) --Ruhrjung 00:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Your last few edits there caused some duplication (of which I've been seeing a lot lately, for some reason . . . is there a software glitch somewhere?) so that I can't tell what was added and what (if anything) was removed. Do you think you could go back there and take out the duplicate text? —No-One Jones 02:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message Thanks for taking an interest in white separatism Sam Spade is trying to advance a racist agenda for some reason, please keep an eye on the page to make sure he does not succeed.GrazingshipIV 07:19, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

That Sam Spade's a tricksy one. I can't tell whether he's generally good natured and just really ignorant/stupid, and thus isn't able to tell NPOV from coddling of weird extremist view points (or perhaps he's a dostoevskyan idiot, too good for this world, who knows?), or he's got an agenda. I have a hard time figuring out exactly what his agenda might be, but the whole thing is irritating. john 07:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on PV. It looks like it is temporarily being managed. The problem is, anyone who uses anonymous IP numbers is hard to block effectively. A temporary solution is to protect the page. I am a sysop but I have been involved in the dispute so I cannot protect the page. I suggest that if he reappears you ask another sysop to block the page. I brought up the matter on the list-serve and it was pretty much ignored. I think we have managed to control PV by reverting, but if he comes back there is a need for something more serious and I am not sure if the mediation process is the appropriate thing. Slrubenstein anon IP are normally hard to block but he obviously has dedicated IPs that would be easy to block indefinitely. The same ones get used repeatedly making me believe (depending on time of day) that these are work and home. - Tεxτurε 20:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) In response to John he is a racist posing as an apathetic loser IMO. But for Andy AC stands for the Arbitration committee there will be ample info there. GrazingshipIV 04:15, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Grazingship is right about the AC. You'll want to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to consider other options, since you don't want to appeal to the AC unless you're sure they'll say yes. Mediation is a possibility I would suggest you consider. You might want to talk to an advocate (See Wikipedia:AMA) about your options -- some of them are mediators or arbitrators, and they might be able to guide you here. If I can be of any more help, good luck. Arbitration is a difficult thing to pursue. Jwrosenzweig 15:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hardial Bains Andy, Hope I am posting this in the right place... still getting used to this site... The info you got on Hardial Bains from that website I have read before. Well some of it may be factual, other things are denied by my Comrades in CPC(M-L). For one thing, when I mentioned the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago to some CPC(M-L) people, I was told that Bains did NOT have anything to do with the founding of it. This was not something contraversial, so if their is one error in that source, I am sceptical about the entire piece. I later confirmed that Bains did not found the party in Trinidad when I met someone who is in the party. I also heard it is not true Bains said that "Women are more Revolutionary than men".

We need to keep in mind that Bains is a very contraversial figure on the Left here in Canada, and that there is a lot of gossip and half-truths, as well as straight up lies about him.

That article is old, and I would prefer to hear the story of CPC(M-L) on those accusations."

Here is the exact QUOTE of mine and in proper CONTEXT:

"The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"-PV

PS--Now I DO understand what "Mel Gibson" went through with his The Passion of the Christ!!!

"Defense against charges of anti-Semitism When Gibson was asked if his movie would be offensive to Jews today, he responded, "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons Christ came, he was crucified - he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."

In an interview in The New Yorker, Gibson charges that he trimmed a scene from The Passion of the Christ involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if he did not, "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me." In response, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish civil rights group, publicly charged Gibson with anti-Semitism, and New York Times critic Frank Rich openly accused Gibson of "Jew-baiting".

In an apparent effort to stem the tide of criticism, Gibson arranged for screenings of the film; yet these merely caused more criticism, as his audiences included prominent Christians and Jews known for their political and social conservatism. Requests for a screening by the ADL were declined. American film reviewer, Michael Medved -- a secular Jewish author, columnist and film reviewer -- praised the movie's Biblical accuracy, although a February 16, 2004 Newsweek cover story by Jon Meacham suggests that there are numerous inaccuracies in the movie. Similarly, one statement by the ADL read:

"For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews." [8] The ADL recently made a web page providing examples of anti-Semitic responses to the ADL's criticism of this project. [9] Critics of the ADL retort that it couldn't possibly be the film that caused any hateful e-mails to the ADL because the film isn't in theatres yet; it is, instead, the ADL's attacks against a film on the life of Jesus that was the motivation. The Catholic League has responded to the ADL by accusing the organization of "seeking to poison relations between Catholics and Jews," contending that the "attacks on Mel Gibson have little to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to do with waging a frontal assault against all those people - Catholics, Protestants, Jews et al. - who have seen 'The Passion' and love it." [10] Other commentators who have seen the film - such as Cal Thomas and Roger Ebert - have also categorically denied that the film contains anti-Semitic material. [11] "

The same CENSOROUS slanderous "ILK" of LYING HYPOCRITES and BIGOTS, as back then, are actually the same ones NOW!-PV

For example, this false "personal insult" of "troll" and his bigoted attempt to censor and ban or block me:

Troll 24.45.99.191 who's name is Paul Vogel and is the same troll I complained about earlier in my quick poll (using another IP address, 64. something which I *think* has been blocked) is still at it. Since he's not a registered user and the consensus is that anon users needn't be subjected to the same quickpoll process as registered users could you please review his activity and see if he merits banning. Thanks AndyL 18:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS-FYI: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=hypocritical

WHAT IS A TROLL?

Well, in a nut-shell, a TROLL is someone who constantly disrupts a posting community for no reason other than just because they CAN. They will often post off-topic, and attack members of the posting community that have done nothing to provoke them. The troll will then often try to make it look like the posting community member had attacked THEM. They will constantly refer to posts made by that member in which the member had "flamed" them verbally or had personally attacked them in the posting community. What they naturally always fail to ALSO HONESTLY say is that the posts of the victim are in direct RESPONSE to a flame war originated by the troll himself.

I am NOT any TROLL nor VANDAL, NOR any other SLANDEROUS PERSONAL INSULT that these lying and hypocritical and psychological projectionist bigoted and censorous ilk have so falsely accused me of being!-PV

Examples of this same cabal and ilk of at least twelve lying and censorous hypocrites and bigots abusing the QuickPolls policy and forming mobs to ban and to censor any other individual POV's that they do falsely and do selfishly and do in their own distorted pov's do find to be somehow "threatening" to them in some way:

User:24.45.99.191 (15 votes / 12 for / 3 oppose / 80% in favour) This user is intent on labeling Carl Sagan a pantheist. He will not accept any NPOV compromise attempts (that edit was instantly reverted) and has violated the three revert rule, even after a warning not to do so. Please peruse the page history for more information. He has also labeled other users "BIGOTS and CENSORS" and put the entire text of the Carl Sagan page on my talk page.

I propose a 24-hour ban ASAP.—Eloquence 20:31, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I recommend extending this ban to all IPs listed as aliases on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: 65.125.10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171/216.99.245.184/66.2.156.38 - Texture 20:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that the user has now, on his talk page, stated that he finds my NPOV compromise acceptable, but has gone around and pasted his preferred version on various pages, including Talk:Carl Sagan.—Eloquence 20:46, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) Implemented. silsor 22:37, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support

Texture 20:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - this is not a new trend EddEdmondson 20:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Jwrosenzweig 20:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - 24 hour ban seems most wise. Hadal 20:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Vogel has a long, tiresome history of trying to insert his POV and attacking anyone who dare oppose. UninvitedCompany 21:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ruhrjung 21:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) (not sure if Quickpolls so to say were intended for non-logged in users, but I think it's a good idea) Michael Snow 21:42, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Tannin I'm not convinced that a quickpoll is needed for this obvious case. To me, it looks like one that any non-involved admin would be justified in implementing without needing the poll. You could look at it as a test case for using quickpolls as opposed to the existing approach. --Michael Snow 22:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ambivalenthysteria 23:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Taku 00:58, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) Ashibaka ✎ 01:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Adam Conover 01:36, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) - also see his similar behavior on Subject-object problem and Talk:Subject-object problem. Oppose

I haven't seen sufficient discussion by others in the talk page. Put the dispute to a vote first. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) I don't see sufficient evidence of having discussed the matter with him, warned him, etc... Paul is difficult, but not unreasonable (he even agrees w the compromise now, according to what is said above). Besides, I don't see a big difference between the two edits, its not like he was vandalizing or anything. I suppose I should be greatful that you even discussed it, instead of banning him outright, as usual. Sam Spade 22:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) I never banned him. What are you talking about? Countless people have tried to discuss the matter with him, see Talk:Carl Sagan/pantheism.—Eloquence I was refering to the past, situations not involving you. He is banned alot. And I don't see that discussion on talk:carl sagan as having been considerate of wikiquette, paul is not alone in having failed to be considerate in his communications (again not refering to you, don't be so thin-skinned ;) Sam Spade 00:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Well, I feel that I have been reasonable with PV in the past, and he has always responded with an undue amount of hostility. I think it would be a good idea to send him an official message: "You can only go so far, but not further. Please try to work with others instead of bullying them into submission."—Eloquence An official letter would be fine, but don't live up to his expectations, if it can be helped. He is a lively person, well used to debating these matters, but he isn't a troll IMO. He provides info, w citations, and sincerely wants to provide factual info in the article. He also has been becoming increasingly more reasonable about obeying policy. The only vanalism I have ever seen him to do involved blanking a talk page And that has almost never happened, in the aprox 6 months I have known him. He does have issues w flooding talk pages or wikiquette, but I think that stems for not understanding the applicable policies, or overzealousness. Sam Spade 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) The actual discussions on the article's talk page are unreasonable. Efforts were not made to create NPOV; rather, efforts were made to convince people that Paul's POV was completely wrong. ugen64 03:17, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) Comments and abstentions on 24.45

Looks like a ban is appropriate. I've not been a wikipedian long enough to vote, however. Dr. Z 20:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This user repeatedly reverted the Carl Sagan page and made inappropriate remarks on the talk page. GrazingshipIV 21:18, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) Do we need to do Quickpolls for anonymous users? Kingturtle 00:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) My first reaction is - no. The vast majority of our vandalism is from anons, and I hesitate to support anything that would make someone reluctant to remove a misbehaving anon. →Raul654 00:39, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC) I oppose Quickpolls on anons, it would be impossible to do anything about vandalism. RickK | Talk 02:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't think there should be any diff b/t anons with Userpages and other users. One of the beautiful things about MWiki is that anons automatically have a userspace. (Cf. User_talk:24.45.99.191) +sj+ 21:10, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

a comment by Moby

A brief synopsis of my interaction with this person, and his with me can be found on my Talk page. I am as yet undecided in what I think the best response to this person would be. That he is a nuisance is OBVIOUS. I find his views, his attitudes, and his behavior abhorrent. Whether I think he should be banned or not remains a question I am still pondering. - Moby 19:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for the Defense of Paul Vogel by Sam Spade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade/Clients#Paul_Vogel