User talk:Sascha Kreiger

Welcome!

Hello, Sascha Kreiger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An advise

Some indirect evidences indicate that you and are either the same person, or you act in concert. Please keep in mind that per our policy you cannot run more than one account without declaring that they are related.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no crap we're the same person because this is Sascha Kreiger. Also, I think it's pretty obvious why I would act in concert with Alex and any other people she decided to bring in. She brought us in because you were running a historical revisionist flame war along with your group of e-thugs, and making it impossible for factual and historical edits to the article. I find it very strange that you would bring up sock puppetry when you already know why we're editing the same article.

Sascha Kreiger (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "Genocide Denial Watch" (I've posted a copy of this message at his page and forgot to change the name). Regarding "act in concert", please, keep in mind that our policy specifically prohibits to "recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate". That means that you should openly declare the connection between the members of your team, however, since you are not independent users, your opinion will be treated accordingly during the consensus building process. Please, keep in mind that after recent scandals with off-Wiki coordination between the group of users who were acting in accord disruptively, WP community is very sensitive to any attempts of this kind, and any undisclosed coordination may inflict severe sanctions on all members of your team. Moreover, even requesting other users to join some discussion to affect its outcome is considered as canvassing and is not allowed. I myself never ask anyone to join the discussions I participate in to avoid any possibility that I unintentionally interfered into the consensus building process.

In summary, if you are able to provide Alex with an intellectual help (bring new sources, propose better wording, etc) go ahead. However, your attempt to support her by simply adding your voiced is against our policy and will have an opposite effect.

If you have additional questions about our policy, I'll gladly answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alex had it planned from the beginning to form some sort of group page on a user space page to make it clear that we were working in a group. Possibly having some sort of template on all of our user pages may be a good idea, as I am a wiki sysop for other websites, and I try to do things to minimize the look of conspiracy or sock puppetry. I will remind everyone to keep as much communication as possible on this site, to prevent appearance of sock puppetry or conspiracy. Also, just because you say you don't communicate with other users who come to your defense, highly conveniently, as I have been told, as there are many other ways to communicate off of this website; I keep this in mind when dealing with other users and policy on the websites I administrate.

I think it's important to add that I don't agree with a lot of what Alex says, and that I'm not here to be a robot for her cause. I may consider myself independent from her group for this reason.

Sascha Kreiger (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You are being discussed at WP:ANI#Personal attacks. TFD (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely for meat-puppetry and harassment

You have been blocked indefinitely as a meat puppet that was created or has edited in violation of Wikipedia policies. Note that recruiting friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate is inappropriate. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first--Cailil ^talk 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sascha Kreiger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was never given a chance to explain what happened, and there is clear harassment and meat puppetry committed by the users who made the report. Sascha Kreiger (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you expect to ever be unblocked I suggest you read and understand WP:NOTTHEM and WP:GAB in general. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For reviewing admins please see the ANI thread[1] and the WP:SPI case[2]. Also contrary to the above unblock request this account has indeed explained what happened[3][4]--Cailil ^talk 18:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]