User talk:Stavgard

March 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Grooves (archaeology), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Stavgard, I regard this edit as an attack on OpenFuture. I have told you several times that there is absolutely no evidence that OpenFuture is Martin Rundkvist - who in fact edits here under his own name. You are alleging sockpuppetry and this is disruptive unless you are willing to make a formal complaint at WP:SPI. I will block you the next time you disrupt Wikipedia in this way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Blocked, per the above warning and this edit. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User :Archaeoa - final warning

Stavgard, please this is your final warning. This user is clearly you - right down to the poor English, mis-spellings and single minded editing. Acknowledge this and freeze the account, or I will file a report at WP:SPI and/or WP:ANI. Your editing, despite a lot of attempts to help you, is now becoming seriously disruptive. Unless it improves I will start the process for removing you permanently from Wikipedia. Please note it is not your content that I object to, but your methods of editing here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I am at a complete loss. You wrote: I'm not sure what action I agreed to undertake that you can't do yourself, Stavgard? If the article can be improved and you can word your improvements in such a way that they are acceptable to other editors, go right ahead and make them. Now you are unblocked you can edit any page you like. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) And I entered the references necessary. Immediately our opponent deleted the references. Why do you think I am alone? We nowadays use SKYPE for our discussions and have during the last few weeks worked this out together in order to get a balanced article. There are many more valuable references we could be entered, but the article would be too clumsy. We all in the group have the same information on our SKYPE chat. You say the rest of the group can't register and defend our improvements of the article. We will then be accused of Socketpuppetry? Is there no way of stopping the opponent deleting our references which are needed to obtain a balanced article?

Stavgard (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, you yourself created a second account, drafted its user page from your Stavgard account and added your characteristic "censor/censure" mistake to confirm this is you. A few points: (1) groups may not have accounts. (2) you may not create multiple accounts to aid your cause. (3) my resources of good faith are now completely exhausted.

You talk about "our opponent" as if there were two of us and one of him. As I've repeatedly told you, I'm satisfied there genuinely are several editors opposed to you and not just one. There is no "we" between you and I: I have been trying for days to help and guide you, but that doesn't mean I agree with you; just that I think you should be given a decent chance. Well you have had your chance. I'm afraid you're on your own now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, yes I realise that Wikipedia can be manipulated.

This was written earlier.

You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If we all in the group register and approve of the improvements, is it then the headcount that counts? How many are on each side, or don't you have a head count?

Stavgard (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no group. There is no "we". There is no headcount. Wikipedia is not based on voting. The Illuminati does not exist, and Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning is most decidedly not the Swedish branch of the Illuminati. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, my reading of OpenFuture's post about the Illuminati was that it was a rather poor joke borne out of frustration and exasperation. It's not the kind of joke I would ever make myself; I don't think humour and sarcasm come across well on the internet. But I don't think for a moment that OpenFuture was actually admitting to the existence of a secret society dedicated to.... well, anything really. If he were a member of the such a secret society I don't think he'd reveal himself in this way. It was a bad joke. That's all. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard accused me of being the leader of a "shady Swedish organisation". I do quite often respond like above to people who accuse me of being part of conspiracies. As you say, nobody that is part of a conspiracy would admit to it. Therefore, people who accuse me of being a part of conspiracies usually realize that they are wrong as soon as you admit it. It is therefore usually a highly effective, if sarcastic, response to the accusations, and usually stops the accusations immediately. This is the first time out of many that anybody actually believed me. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, I missed a specific question from you above. You asked "If we all in the group register and approve of the improvements, is it then the headcount that counts? How many are on each side, or don't you have a head count?" The answer is at the section of Wikipedia describing the inelegantly named meatpuppetry. It says: "Do not 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. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." This means that no, you can explicitly not conduct an off-Wiki recruitment campaign and bring numbers here to outvote your opponents. Decisions here are indeed taken on consensus but this is trumped by adherence to policy; any number of people can vote on a topic, but if they are wrong on the application of policy they will not prevail. You haven't really tried to understand WP policy (or perhaps you have, but you don't like the policies you see...) and this is why you are having trouble making your voice heard. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, this was only a question as I felt it was the way it works. I have no intention to help anybody to be registered. However, I can't stop collegues to register who are being frustrated that my entries with approved references all the time are stopped.

I am by now quite fed up with Wikipedia. The only decent person I have met here is you. My academical discussions are on a much higher level. However, I was of the misconception that I could help improve some articles but the opposition to this is too strong.

Wikipedia could be a much more reliable place.

Stavgard (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stavgard for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Bazj (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, I asked you this question at the SPI investigation. You are of course under no obligation to answer but it would be helpful if you did. It's up to you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated sockpuppet accusations.

Here Stavgard yet again accuse me of being Mrund, this despite you being blocked *three times* for this already. I find it highly insulting to be accused of sockpuppeteering. Stavgard are clearly completely unable to learn even from repeated blocks and have no intention to help building an encyclopedia. He is only here to disrupt and destroy.

Stavgard is clearly WP:NOTHERE, is unable to learn from blocks and as such can be permanently banned. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote the following earlier: You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A point of correction to OpenFuture. Stavgard has not been blocked three times for making disruptive accusations of sockpuppetry; this was the reason for his third block (only). The first block was for a disruptive failure to respond to multiple attempts to engage in talk page discussion, and the second block was for disruptive editing in attempted outing of another editor after a clear warning not to do so. Where I do agree with you is that this exhibits a pattern of disruption which (if it continues) would lead to calls for a ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, then I misremembered. I should have checked. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture you wrote You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How should i interpret this. I took it as a threat. Am I wrong? Stavgard (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. It was a childish joke, an attempt to parody what was seen as your view of a shady organisation. It was meant to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is of secret cabals of editors conspiring behind closed doors to oppose you. You should interpret it as an attempt at humour which backfired. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept and find it demeaning that Mrund calls a professor in archaeology an amateur scholar. Obviously Mrund hasn't got a clue about his opposition. There are only som archaeologists that don't like the Gotlandic grooves. There are other archaeologists including professors in archaeology and archaeoastronomers that treat the matter in a scientific way. Therefore the wording in the article has to be a general wording. Mrund and his group have the right to have their belief. However, those who try to have a scientific approach must be treated with the same respect.

Stavgard (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Which professor is that? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Various professors both in Stockholm and Uppsala. Who are the people in your group? You of course know that Jonathan Lindström has not got an academic exam. If you have so little knowledge about what people think you should be more careful in your writing and allow are more general approach.

Stavgard (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are unable to name one single Archeology professor that supports these theories. I forced to conclude that your claims are baseless. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Who else are there in your group that doesn't accept archaeological proof? And does not want references with archaeological proof.

Stavgard (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguments between the two of you about who knows whom are beside the point. Communications from personal acquaintances do not count as reliable sources, however eminent your friends might be. The only factor of any importance is what do the reliable sources say. Wikipedia articles do not usually evaluate or even refer to the status of the authors of reliable sources. So this argument is pointless. We just need to say "Some sources say X, other sources say Y". We might reasonably make reference to one side being a majority view. if there is clear evidence for this. We are NOT going to say "Eminent person A says X, but irresponsible dabbler B says Y." I'm going to check the article now and will reword this paragraph if it's necessary. Meanwhile Stavgard, there is a question from me for you at the sockpuppet investigation which you have not yet replied to. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kim. This is my point. I see that you have improoved the article with these thoughts. Hope nobody violates your authority.

Stavgard (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no more or less authority here when drafting article text than you, OpenFuture or any other editor; neither you nor anyone else should take my drafts as definitive and final. By the way Stavgard, just in case you missed it, I asked you this question at the SPI investigation. You are of course under no obligation to answer but it would be helpful if you did. It's up to you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard: There is no group, and if there was a group, it would certainly not be my group. The only one not accepting archaeological evidence here are you. You claimed a professor of archaeology supported the calendar theory, I asked who. You refused to answer. Once again claims need to be supported by reliable sources. Unless you can fins a reliable source with a professor of archaeology claiming he supports the calendar theory, then you can not on Wikipedia say that a professor of archaeology supports the theory. It really is that simple. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the claims in the article about the status of the authors on different sides of the dispute. I don't know enough about the topic to be in a position to adjudicate on who (if anyone) is in the minority, or even whether one of these is really a fringe theory. But hopefully the wording I've changed makes the position clear to anyone reading the article and coming at this for the first time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: could we carry on this discussion on the article talk page? It's hard to have the same discussion in two places. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your editing style on Wikipedia

The outcome of the sockpuppet investigation is still awaited, but regardless of the outcome there are some fundamental difficulties that I want to try and address with you. I'm concerned (a) that you are not having a good, productive time here at en-WP and also (b) that your presence here currently brings more disruption than construction. I'd like to try to address this with you here to see if we can get somewhere.

You registered your account three years ago but only began editing in earnest on 11th February this year; since then you have been blocked three times by me. You began by inserting huge blocks of unreferenced text such as this one which were immediately reverted by other editors. You were asked on your talk page not to do so and to discuss your edits but didn't, which led to a report to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). After the first block to stop the edits and get your attention you did begin to respond on your talk page which was a definite step forward.

The second block was for a second attempt to 'out' a fellow editor after a first attempt and an absolutely explicit warning not to do so again. The third block was (again after several warnings) for continuing to allege sockpuppetry among a range of fellow editors who were (to my mind) clearly separate people. To cap it all you then engaged in sockpuppetry of your own by registering the Archaeoa account - going so far as to draft its user page entry from your Stavgard account! All the while you have been engaged in a slow edit war with several other users on the Grooves (archaeology) article where you have been unwilling to compromise or adapt to the WP style of consensual editing.

Any one of those blocks could be put down to a mistake, inexperience or over-enthusiasm. But the three of them, coupled with the socking and your combative editing style add up to a problem. WP promotes itself as "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" which I think is a little misleading. Anyone can attempt to edit, but not everyone is actually able to pull it off. Your English, while much better than my non-existent Swedish, is not excellent and your sentences often need copyediting. You are effectively a single purpose account (SPA) whose only aim over the last couple of weeks has been to promote a minority theory about the purpose and date of grooves in rocks in Gotland. You do not take the time to learn technicalities such as how to insert citations or policy/procedural knowledge such as what is a reliable source. You do not listen or pay attention when others point out these problems and leave links to the relevant guidance. When you do learn these things, you ignore them if they don't suit your purpose.

Not all of this has been your fault. WP can be an unfamiliar , confusing place to the newcomer at best. At worst, it can feel an intolerant, unwelcoming place where newcomers are expected to know everything and are ridiculed or sidelined if they don't. Part of your trouble has been that you are trying to add material that is somewhat controversial, disputed or runs counter to mainstream opinion. This does mean it can lead to quick reverts by others and a feeling of persecution on your part, which is not conducive to calm, collegial editing.

So, what are we to do? I tell you clearly, things cannot go on as they have been in the last three weeks. I would prefer you to learn the ropes and become a valued WP editor but if you can't or won't learn them, further blocks and an eventual ban are the likely outcome. Here are some positive suggestions which I'd ask you to consider:

• As you are still unfamiliar with the technicalities of the wiki interface, how about contributing in Swedish at sv-WP - for example there is an article there on Gotland which I'm sure you could add to. Contributing there first would mean other Swedish-speaking editors could more easily explain how and why the wiki-interface works the way it does.
• If you do want to be an editor here and not just an SPA then widen the range of articles you work on. Your dogged insistence on getting a specific bit of text into a specific article has bordered on an obsession and is as frustrating for you as it is for your fellow editors. Find some other articles on other topics and make small, uncontroversial edits to them. There must be information on Swedish topics on sv-WP that could be translated and imported into en-WP article, maybe you could do that?
• You could ask for mentoring by an adopter by pasting this template: {{subst:dated adoptme}} on your user page. This would give you an experienced editor whom you could ask for advice, run things by before making edits and so on. As you pointed out yourself, some features of WP really need supervision and this is one way to get it.
• Take the time to really read and digest the policies that have been linked for you many times. Then take a deep breath and accept that you got off here on the wrong foot in your first few hundred edits, and need to work out new style of interacting that invites consensus rather than conflict.
• You may have other ideas too, but only YOU can change your experience here. Regardless of whether you believe all the fuss has been other people's fault (clue:it hasn't...), the only person here whose approach you can change is Stavgard's.

I am happy to have a further discussion here about what you can do to improve things but I'm not going to get into (a) a discussion with you about why other people have been so unreasonable or (b) into a discussion with other people about why you are such a terrible person. If you're not willing to have that discussion or take on some of the points above, and your edits continue to be problematic, the next step will be a more formal one but I hope we can avoid that.

I'm sorry for the length of this post, but this is very important and I want to give you the clearest feedback and the best chance of becoming a productive editor here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Kim. You are heading in the direction of a longer block or even ban. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

File:Yes

I'm not sure what the deal is with Grooves (archaeology), but using an alternative account to further your own position in an editorial debate is never acceptable. I have blocked your account for 1 week as a first measure, and must warn you that, in the event you use alternative accounts again in such a way, you will be blocked indefinitely. This block is based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stavgard and my own checkuser investigation; I also indefinitely blocked Archaeoa (talk · contribs). AGK [•] 20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)