User talk:Supreme Leader of Wikipedia

Blocked
Please see here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I was given no explanation of the problem with this user name, and was switching because I was told to do so. Can we stop with this and let me just get to editing? I haven't done anything wrong and was trying to propose some helpful changes on articles that claim to be about a concept in general yet only treat the U.S.-- pretty egregious for an encylopedia. What is the problem possibly with this change of the user name? I was told to change my name from Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un so as not to impersonate a Living Person so I did exactly as told and removed the impersonation "Kim Jong-un" and replaced it with generic "of Wikipedia". I don't understand what the problem of this could be. I am not impersonating anyone, obviously. I changed the name as I was asked and I clearly labelled that page with template humor "this page is kept because it is humorous" after being told of the "No impersonation" policy. Other users found it amusing. Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)}}

It seems obvious that you are a sock of User:Kingshowman. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * totally false. Not every King is the same person Anna, and not every Anna F. Is Anna Freud, as you well know.Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. You are obviously User:Kingshowman. Links to show it include: User:Lord Of The Wikipedians, User:King Of The Wikipedians, and this.


 * Did I mention we are volunteers? I wonder if you hurt others in real life too. When you are 80, will you look back in regret? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Anna, do you realize I'm not a vandal and I've helped many of your articles ? I've improved this encylopedia immensely countless times. Check most of the leads to the major philosopher articles were written by me (Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Plato, etc.) I've only ever been blocked due to your childish rules none of which have any effect on the quality of the encylopedia like
 * 1. "dont flame the racist vandal trolling accounts!" Especially when they create hoax articles with purely pseudoscientific references like Nations and intelligence (check the record and you'll see I was vindicated and the material I said needed to be taken out was taken out and the user I was "warring" with has no command of English and should not be allowed to edit here. Go look he is still at it trolling that article and you choose to block me instead of him because I have the truthfulness to actually call a racist, pseudoscientific goose-stepping troll account who wouldn't know what a real scientific reference was if one hit him in the face exactly what it is.
 * 2. "Watch out for the sock puppet police!"
 * 3. "Be civil!" Appeals to civility are the refuge of those who already know they are wrong. You had no business blocking me in the first place, and I honestly could care less about your sock puppet policy, which obviously prioritizes who is editing over your content and makes your encylopedia intellectually unserious. Don't lecture me like I haven't contributed immensely here. Stop blocking me for no reason other than protecting your articles from racist, fascist troll accounts or editors who don't know the topic but choose to edit on it, and then maybe neither of us would have to continue going though this little charade. The only thing which is relevant is improving the articles if you think I care about your little cops and detectives games of sock puppet police, get real. When you're 80 aren't you going to regret the time you pointlessly wasted on sock puppet investigations to ensure the hallowed purity of your accounts instead of doing what you actually came to do? Auf Wiedersehn.  Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are Kingshowman. You lied.


 * Lots of editors help to build this and work together without the resource drain of socking. You don't seem to care for the way the entire community does things. You are right and everyone is wrong. Correct? Your enormous contribution of protecting articles and righting great wrongs have are negated by the dozens of hours we spent handling your socking. So, please don't tell me what an asset you are. You even sock and waste community time, for fun, like you did with the Kim Jong account.


 * And this isn't about "rules". It is about working together.


 * Do you want to contribute and be welcome here and work together? I want that for you. If so, stop socking and tell us how you wish to procede. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * see below? It already begins with the sock puppet detectives, as if they win a prize for catching socks or they get to feel like they are sherlock holmes or on law and order or whatever their weird little fantasy is. The sock puppet police are on the case! It is amazing how many Wikipedians enjoy playing "detective" on the Internet more than playing "encylopedist" or "writer." I shouldn't have been blocked to begin with. My original block was completely spurious. If it hadn't happened, there would have been no socking. Maybe next time the admins can be a little more interested in the content on the actual pages and a little less concerned with how delicately worded the edit summaries are. I would prefer if the sock puppet detectives gave it up with their crap too. The Kim-Jong un thing I was already annoyed at my mistreatment my reckless admins who would not even read the goddamn page I was editing before blocking me when I stated again and again that this account with no ability to write in English (the Master) had essentially created a hoax page at nations and intelligence filled with pseudoscientific fringe references. Yet he's still editing here but what I did is really problematic. Get your priorities straight, admins here have their heads so far up their asses in enforcing "policies" it is unbelievable the idiocy they allow rather than actually improve pages. "No I won't actually read the page or check if these are pseudoscience journals just block you for edit warring" and then go look right now I was completely vindicated and other users finally showed some integrity and deleted that garbage content. Get your priorities straight admins. And no, a Userpage marked humor is not really a major "disruption."Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And, in fact, as you can now see, I don't actually waste time with investigations, I always admit to my socks. On that note, no, that other poorly spelled account is not me. Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Lerd the nerd wiki defender  08:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What are we supposed to do? Let you attack others? And when stopped, allow you to just make more accounts and keep doing it? Really? Would you allow that in your organization? I'm not an idiot and neither is the community at large. We don't senselessly follow rules. And do you think the community is blind? Articles find their proper place/content. We don't need a vigilante who has figured out that the entire community needs help. And if you make personal attacks, then others attack and then Wikipedia doesn't function. Those rules you hate are there for a reason. Please don't give me this stuff about how Wikipedia is a mess and you are here to right the wrongs. Please just stop doing Wikipedia this great service. Work with the community instead. I can't believe you really fault us for not doing what you want, which is to allow you to call people whatever names you want.


 * Anyhow, there is a path for you. A single account and a civil tongue. That's it. Can you do that? If you do that and use your obvious intelligence, you can be an asset to this encyclopedia you obviously care about. What do you say? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to be unblocked and use a single account. I don't think I really merited my indefinite ban in September by Dennis Brown and OhNoItsJamie on very slim pretences "battleground behavior" anyway. I can't even find what the hell they originally blocked me for. Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll actually stick up for you and push for an unblock and clean start. No guarantees it will happen. But come on, it has to be better than socking where everything you do just gets zapped. I know you want to be effective and influence what goes on here. You just have to be a little patient with the editing. You can't go to war every time you see something you don't like. If you are up against idiot POV pushers, it will be easy for you to get support in discussions. You don't need incivility and revert wars to get what you want. Patience. Brains. Work smart. Slay them with your intelligence. I live in China and watch the men play chess. There are idiots who slam the pieces down and don't think and try brute force. They lose. The smart ones, the ones I respect, use patience and the old "walk-softly-big-stick" as a strategy. It infuriates their foes and they win, win, win. You strike me as the smart type using the slammer's strategy. Switch and win. Okay?


 * My resource investment (15 min.) is near the end. What say you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd in fact be very happy to be unblocked and to stop having to go through this sock puppet business and would be happy to stop Wasting my time with blocks and wars. But like you, I won't get my hopes up. I appreciate your advice and your help.Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I grind my teeth reading "having to go through this sock puppet business".


 * My concern is whether or not you are going to make me look like a trusting idiot and go back to this? That is huge. Could you actually put brains above emotions and get full control over your edits? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't see what your linking to, but I definitely will stop Socking and Flaming other editors when I disagree strongly. Also,It would probably would be best to stay away from the Political pages where I usually get myself in trouble and stick to Philosophy, where my edits have been well received and generally welcomed. Several of the small group of editors over there have strongly encouraged my contributions and I was doing quite well (until I waded into that nations and intelligence cesspool article.).Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a working link, it is to your blocklog:


 * Okay, if you absolutely promise to make a 360 turnaround and never be uncivil or warring or wikilawyering or harassing or flaming or anything like that, and instead be civil and smart and calm and patient and, well, totally the opposite of all of that stuff that got you blocked before, and you can honestly say now that you trust me when I say that, boy oh boy, can you ever come out on top with honey instead of vinegar, and this is a whole new way forward and if you go back to the old way at all then you will be blocked and I will look like an idiot and you will look like an idiot whose emotions trumped over his brains, and articles will go back to being run by people you don't agree with and that is lose lose and nobody wants that. Do you totally agree and pinkie swear and absolutely understand and agree to all of this? And again, no guarantees that others will agree to any unblock. This is just getting your end all set. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I absolutely promise that I would not engage in any more incivility or warring or battleground or lawyering and to be much more patient, calm, cool-headed, and a peaceful good friend to all Wikipedians. Never again will I, in the midst of a controversial political dispute or fight about some content which I perceive to be racist, refer to another editor as "politically, just to the right of Adolf Hitler." Nor would I again openly gloat to other users who had criticized or reverted my edits when they were later restored by a 3rd party--which, if memory serves, is what Dennis originally blocked me for. I now see that this sort of attitude was not collegial, or helpful behavior for the project or myself. I would also, if unblocked, confine myself to where I could help most, in Philosophy, which really has very  few editors, as the good people like Snowded over there told me, entreating me to stop getting into arguments in political articles, so as to not get myself banned. I should have listened and stuck to Philosophy,  where  I have had almost no problems. Here are some diffs from editors who were quite happy about my recent contributions over there:, , If one looks at the new lede of Martin Heidegger to which I made substantial contributions recently, and in collaboration with other editors, entirely rewrote the lede to an important article that people had been cimplanting about for years,  one will see I was making useful contributions to the project until the dispute at Nations and intelligence broke out, a mistake I won't repeat again, if given the chance to return (or even approach such controversial or political topics.) you will also see that I have written, in collaboration with other editors, many of the important philosophy leads,  for example,I wrote the bulk of the introductions to Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Plato, Martin Heidegger, Truth, and Parrhesia, to name a few contributions I am most proud of here, and which other editors have preserved for a long time as very positive contributions to the project. I also, before getting blocked, was in the midst of proposing some important changes be made the open of Philosophy itself that were endorsed by Phaarrcom and Snowded, two of the best of the small cadre of Philosophy area editors here.  I definitely am not expecting any unblock, but if I ever was unblocked, I would stick to Philosophy in the future which really needs editors badly, and I've had the most impact and stay far away from Political or controversial articles where I have gotten into heated edit wars previously. 10:18,Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. You were the one to indeffed this user, User:Kingshowman. I know this discussion should take place at his original talk, but here it is anyhow.

I am wondering if an unblock and fresh start would be possible? The nuts and bolts are my paragraph above: "Okay, if you absolutely promise to..." and his response "Yes, I absolutely promise that I would..."

If consulting other admins would be appropriate, fine. If you think I'm bananas and too trusting, I would understand that too. Brace yourself...now click his block log and SPI.

He talks of the constructive edits he's made in the past, and obviously sees the wasted hours all this socking and reverting has amounted to. I think he is motivated to switch to a strategy that influences articles in an efficient and intelligent way.

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(Kingshowman, can you be a bit patient? Dennis hasn't edited since Dec 27, I think, but he checks things regularly. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm happy to be patient and wait 6 months until July or so, when I may try to return and do some editing on Philosophy articles in need of assistance and would stay away from controversial topics and political issues, and refrain from flaming or warring or socking upon return, as stated below. Until then, I will be quiet and bid you all adieu! See below for more. Thanks to you both. Auf Wiedersehn!Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a message on Dennis's talk page that says "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because he needs to finish up personal business. I will check email daily, but won't get involved with new issues. I have no idea how long it will take, but these personal issues will require all my energy and patience, so it is better for me to just stay away from here for a while. I will likely return sometime in 2016." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee.

Well, Kingshowman, Dennis was our best hope. Like I said, it was a long shot. Getting consensus from those involved in the past would be near 0%. So, that leaves the standard offer.

Anyhow, I think we both can now see what this is all about. This is just a guess, but I think you don't much like authority and you don't suffer fools gladly either. I think you really do like Wikipedia and want to help this project. I think all this socking isn't really about helping Wikipedia. It is a response. You started here doing your best to help and the thanks you got was to end up feeling screwed over by admins. Then you said I refuse your rules and will do it my way. But you are smart. And therein lies the rub. There can be no way you can look at this socking and see it as a net positive for Wikipedia or especially for you. Just this represents so much of yourself wasted. I know you must recognize it as a huge loss of energy and time that just gets undone. Emotionally it is satisfying. Intellectually, it is a devastating loss. You don't strike me as a loser. You strike me as a smart person who is reacting. So, I humbly suggest something. Empower yourself by letting your intellectual self rise above the emotional. Socking is beneath you and is what 12-year-olds do when frustrated. Give it 6 months and return for a decade-long career at really shaping Wikipedia for the better. What do you say? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that, Kingshowman - Anna is one of our most caring and helpful contributors, so please have a think about what she's saying. But I'd also add one note, that it's not just the socking that's the problem - your repeated personal attacks on other editors also don't do justice to your intellect, and the only person you are really degrading with them is yourself. I do hope you can come back some day and continue with the excellent work you have been doing on Philosophy topics, and I would also support a return via the Standard Offer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much to you both Anna Frodesiakand Boing! said Zebedee Boing, I am sorry to have lost my temper when you wouldn't look at those dubious edits of those two SPA editors who are here exclusively to promote racialist theories of intelligence, on the Nations and intelligence, and to have created that sock to support my position against them. Sorry as well for the silly Userpage at the Kim Jong-un account, and for other flaming of some editors in relation to the recent uproar about  race and intelligence.  I am happy to accept your offer, though I understand other admins may not agree, and I promise I will keep up my end of the standard offer and refrain from creating any new accounts or posting for 6 months (which should be easy, I only really have the time to post here in July-August and December-January anyway due to school schedule.), and having to constantly create new accounts every time my identity is discovered is becoming quite wearisome and time-consuming in any event. if/when I return, I will stick to Philosophy topics exclusively where my contributions have been entirely constructive and I have some subject knowledge,with no flaming, warring, battleground, or trolling-- no more use of the word "goose-stepping"  to describe other editors, or proposing articles comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, or anything of that nature, I promise you! If possible, I will lay low and abstain from editing or creating new accounts for 6 months and will hope to have a peaceful, quiet return this summer by mid to late July, returning exclusively to the very small group of philosophy editors. I would entirely abstain from controversial topics and political entries, where my contributions have been more controversial, and there is no dearth of editors anyway.Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is great news! Reading "...If possible, I will lay low..." is not such great news. A CU may show if you've been secretly editing. It also says that you may not be in complete control of yourself. Earth is out of control. At least be in control of yourself. :) Besides, this is a good opportunity. The best way to get over a fear of spiders, is to hold one. This is a perfect exercise in thinking the way you want to think.


 * It is definitely a good plan to discontinue posting at the "Please intervene" thread below. The articles may temporarily be not the version you want. Have patience. Be at rest in chaos. Plenty of articles at Wikipedia contain BS and only idiots believe idiocy. I cringe at this. The article does not give an accurate picture of who he was. Anyhow, about the articles in question, at least there isn't the collateral damage of a white-washed pharamceutical or crooked hedge fund manager article. This world is nuts and we can only drive ourselves nuts trying to set it all straight. Remember the movie Catch 22? You kind of have to go limp and let things unfold in this insane asylum called Earth. :) Remember, be at rest in chaos.


 * Anyhow, I am happy to see that maunus has drawn attention to the matter at ANI. Nations and intelligence currently has 50 page watchers and here are the page hits. Race and intelligence currently has 718 page watchers and here are the page hits. Richard Lynn currently has 101 page watchers and here are the page hits.


 * Finally, I will post at a bunch of wikiprojects to try to get some more input at those articles. Articles find their way. I check back on messes after a couple of months, and the rubbish is usually all gone.


 * So, enjoy your time away from "controversial topics and political entries". I mean, why even read those articles? Why drive yourself nuts? It's like Charlie Brown watching Lucy tell Linus about the world. Charlie used to get a stomach ache. :) I've always been grateful to the person who taught me to "be at rest in chaos". Sorry for the long post. (And please choose your right path, for the sake of the 45 minutes I've spent and your future hours better spent.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. well that user is the one who Brought me to dispute resolution, but then ignored the result: he was told not to post in article space because it does not seem that he is a competent speaker of English, and was told he must stay in talk pages only because English Wikipedia requires basic English competence, which he lacks.
 * 2. It seems, to my mind, just utterly crazy that no admin is doing anything when Manus, Volunteer Marek, and I have all told you they are coordinating off-site at some Racism or White Supremacy board on inserting false, egregious, openly racist and fraudulent content on Wikipedia. Manus has posted on ANI with no reply yet from anyone. If I was an admin, I'd be far more concerned about something of that nature which damages the entire credibility and viability of the project, then sock puppetry, which is, at worst, a waste of time but does no permanent damage. I'm not posting elsewhere or socking. I've actually never used multiple socks at once anyway, just serially.
 * 3. You misread my "if possible" which I worded poorly (the fault is mine.) I meant "if unblocked", I don't know why I phrased it that way. It was written quickly.
 * 4. "the general" is very probably just upset and cross because I told him that I was sorry I had offended his delicate sensibilities and that he might have a stick up his ass on my talk page after he said my Kim Jong-un joke was not funny, since they had nukes. Many editors told me they found it funny. isn't this a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, anyway? Presumably, he is not actually "the general" of anything.
 * 5. I will refrain from posting more, but please consider your priorities when I have repeatedly told you that users are coordinating on white supremacy forums to insert their discredited "racial realism" stuff. How can whether or not a blocked user posts on a talk page be more important than whether Race War forums send in a number of users to insert pseudoscience into article space? Which of those two things threatens the credibility of the encylopedia qua encylopedia? That user threatens the very credibility of your project. It is shocking that any admin could consider me, who has merely flamed some editors and used multiple accounts, to have done something worse than these people who have deliberately infiltrated your website from racial supremacy forum boards to damage the projects credibility and use your site as a platform for the race supremacy war. This is not something to just shrug your shoulders about; this is literally the very worst thing that could happen to your project and will in fact destroy it if you let them continue and more of them keep coming. And again, I am not the one making this accusations. No one has responded by the ban which is required to preserve your project from complete loss of credibility. The lack of interest in stopping people who users who have posted at ANI have infiltrated you from the Racist internet forum world and are deliberately inserting false content does not make much sense to me. Why are these users not already banned permanently? Supreme Leader of Wikipedia
 * 6. 103.xxx is a sock puppet of this permanently banned user, who has been damaging the intelellectual credibility of your encylopedia for years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Captain_Occam Captain Occam.) The poorly named account "the Master" is his faithful lapdog and servant. (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head and are absolutely right. We all know that all of this is going on. You are astonished that admins and others are all not rushing in to put out every fire. This is why:

There are five million articles. Areas like the race, the Middle East, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Republicans, Wall Street, etc. etc..... are rife, and I mean rife with POV editing, nutjobs, whitewashing, BS, socking, and off-wiki collusion. And those areas are just the teeniest tip of the iceberg. This is Wikipedia. Anonymity in adding content and huge, huge views. Nowhere near enough good editors like yourself to stop this. Of course all this is happening.

I posted at three Wikiprojects asking for input. Where is everybody? Six years ago, they'd be all over this. I see nobody. Maybe those types are vanishing and the baddies are gaining strength. This project is about millions and millions of editors with different points of view getting articles right. And it does actually happen. But when it doesn't, admins have no hope of being 911 and rushing in to check sources and debate and argue and sort things out. There are only a few hundred active admins and millions of articles and editors. Editors handle content disputes. Admins stop disruption.

So what to do about it? You've figured out that becoming part of the problem is not helping. Admins and all editors here care deeply and see the problem. You've figured that part out too. So, use you mind, your best tool. Work smart, stress-free. Kick back and think. Take this time to think. This race article stuff isn't the emergency. The entire project has this problem. You are focussed on a minute part. Like putting your finger in one of a zillion holes in a dyke. Water is rushing out everywhere. The scale is huge.

I've always said, "don't save the whales". Go to the source of the problem. The world is falling to pieces. Fix it at the source and you save the whales, the reefs, the forests, the starving, everything.

One day, a major, major new way for Wikipedia may be needed to save it. This is where you come in. Work the organizational side of Wikipedia. Prepare proposal for the Village Pump. Anything. But walk away from this absurd battle. The only people who will read it and give it credence are idiots and in a month or so, these articles will probably be fixed. I see you in 911 mode, jumping from one fire to another to put it out. Think big. Go after the systemic problem. This is where we need your help.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, Anna has explained things in a way upon which I cannot possibly improve. The thing is, we admins are expressly prohibited from using the admin toolbox to decide disputes over article content - and we most definitely do not hold any kind of editorial authority. In fact, the rules are even stronger than that - if an admin expresses any opinion relating to article content in a disagreement, that admin is then forbidden by Wikipedia's WP:INVOLVED policy from taking any admin action related to that disagreement. That's the reason I personally will not take any part in these content discussions. There are content editors here who are far more skilled than I in content policies and in contributing to content discussions (Maunus and Volunteer Marek have been mentioned, both of whom I hold in high regard), and there are precious few active admins - and so I think it is better if I reserve my efforts for helping with admin actions, at the expense of not being able to contribute to the content discussions. Are there flaws in Wikipedia's way of doing things? Most definitely, especially as vested interests can increasingly see value in trying to slant Wikipedia content to their own benefit. What can we do about it? I'll leave that for others to try to work out, because it's a horrible time-wasting and soul-sucking activity with little chance of success. (In my opinion, Wikipedia will face a crisis some time in the future, and the WMF will have to get off its complacent collective backside and do something about it - but ordinary editors and admins are utterly powerless to effect any meaningful change.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely an improvement. Boing! said Zebedee. :) Well put! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to punt here and simply say "no comment". Whatever Anna Frodesiak and Boing! said Zebedee think is best, I will accept as I have the highest level of trust in them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice punting, Dennis Brown. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance for the long post. Thanks Dennis for checking in re: my original block. I hope all is well. Dennis, I do apologize for the original conduct which led to my block. If I recall accurately, my initial block was over content disputes at Coal, where I had accused some other editors of working for the Coal industry, when they tried to prevent me from adding sourced information about the negative health and environmental effects of Coal, claiming that such information was already in the separate article Environmental Effects of Coal. Though I consider this explanation extremely dubious as a reason to revert (the effects of coal should be given much more prominence in the lead of that article, whether or not there is a POV fork article about Coal's environmental effects), I see that it is inappropriate and unhelpful to suggest that others are "shills" for the Coal industry, simply because they had removed my edits. Though I continue to maintain these edits to Coal were constructive, and reflected an extremely broad scientific and international consensus that Coal is presently, globally the worst source of pollution, as we have all recently seen by the 195 country Paris Climate accord, which essentially stated the same points I tried to enter into the article, and which was signed even by the worst Coal polluters, such as China, the U.S., and India, I can see that the accusations of "shilling" were neither constructive or legitimate. If memory serves, I was then blocked by Dennis for the first time, for openly gloating to Flyer22, who had been following me around to various unrelated pages and reverting a number of edits of mine after an initial dispute between us over some content I had tried to add about the Philosophy of Childhood page, which she had reverted without explanation other than baseless accusations of trolling, and had offered what I felt was grossly inadequate explanation of her reversions. Once, then, a neutral 3rd party restored my edits as "improvements to the encyclopedia", I rudely and uncollegiately asked her if she was "ready to eat crow" and called her a "fool." I can now see that such conduct is detrimental to the project, results in the destruction of my helpful content, and helps no one, including myself. I agree that this initial block by Dennis was quite reasonable. After being unblocked for these two incidents, Dennis indefinitely blocked in September over a 3rd content dispute on the page landlord, when I had tried to insert the following text: "The term 'landlord' historically derives from the economic system of feudalism, a system of bonded labor. [1] Most municipalities and state governments have now legislated significant codes of tenants' rights to protect tenants against unethical business practices. [2][3][4]" I had also added a section to a very stub-like article, which summarized, with sources, both Adam Smith and Karl Marx's notable theories on landlords. These were useful additions to a very weak article. OhnoitsJamie, who had very sarcastically refused my previous unblock requests, and thus to my mind, was WP: INVOLVED, and I believe he should have left my edits to this page alone due to his involvement and clear dislike of me in his sarcastic replies to my unblock requests, reverted my addition as "undue" and as "duplicated elsewhere in the article" and also called my content "a philosophical tangent." I still do not understand this final block from Dennis, though I imagine his reasoning was that he had unblocked on short rope, and I was to be blocked for any further dispute of any kind. He also seemed upset that I had posted a quote from the Gospels "He has risen" on my talkpage to announce my return from the block (as a joke. I am a committed Atheist, and was raised as Jewish in any event.) In my defense for this incident, I took to the talk page, as requested, and provided reasons that the content should stay and the reasons offered were illegitimate, and felt that I was being unjustly hounded because of the two prior blocks, when I was obviously a helpful contributor to the project. I don't think I engaged in personal attacks during this incident, although they were falsely described as such. As I wrote on the talk page, 1. I do not think it is legitimate to remove relevant philosophical content from an article summarizing the views of historically important philosophers like Marx and Smith on the concept, with sources, to provide a broader historical view of the concept. This is precisely what an encylopedia is for,and how people learn things from reading one.  The article was stub-like anyway, and asking for expansion. No harm was done in adding the informative, referenced, neutral section on Marx and Smith's views on landlords, which are extremely notable. (These two could each be just as easily considered economists, anyway-- to call something philosophical is just a way of saying that the questions it involves are quite general or fundamental.) 2. The fact that something is repeated in the article is not reason for it to not be in the lead. The lead is actually supposed to reproduce the material from the article. This reasoning does not make sense to me, as I stated on the talk page. 3. Finally, Jamie told me my edit was "undue" where I stated that the "term landlord historically derives from the medieval system of bonded labor, or Feudalism". I do not think he was correct in that judgment. How can giving the origin of a concept be WP: UNDUE weight? It is a well-known fact that the term landlord is closely related to Feudalism, a system of bonded labor, and I provided citations. The origin of a concept should, in my view, always be in the lead, and I do not see that simply saying UNDUE without further explanation was adequate grounds for the reversion, and I do not think that Jamie should have been reverting my content when he was involved qua administrator in my case.
 * Here was the talk page incident which got me indefinitely banned. You will see there that I did not engage in Personal Attacks (though, admittedly, I did after being blocked, which I regarded as completely unjust, since I had not violated any policies upon my return, and had been costructively editing.) Likely, my use of capitalization was interpreted as an "attack", and I can see that my tone was overly aggressive and uncalm, and I should not have been so uncalm, and should have shown more patience in stumping for my material.


 * "Simply saying "this doesn't belong in the lead" doesn't provide a reason why something doesn't belong in the lead. It's an important element in the article, and I'm summarizing the article in the lead. Please provide better reasons in your edits for deleting relevant material that other editors support. Many thanks. Kingshowman (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I did take to the talk page, you did not respond. Nor is this a philosophical "tangent". An encyclopedia article listing the derivation of a term is not a tangent. Please do not pursue grudges against me, you've made clear enough you do not like me with your responses to my unblock request. You should recuse yourself and allow someone else to defend your indefensible position if you insist on pursuing this. Also, please explain how it is a "tangent" to say that "laws have been passed to protect tenants from landlords." I haven't seen one bit of defensible argument for any of your positions. I just see mere unsupported assertion after mere unsupported assertion. You are being extremely uncivil. Kingshowman (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Leads summarize the article: therefore if the article includes a paragraph long note on the term and concept of 'landlord' being traceable to the economic system of feudalism, one may include a one sentence summary of this paragraph in the lead. Please learn your own policies better if you are going to continue to contribute here. Many thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it takes 2 to have a war, so if I am guilty of edit warring, than equally so are you.Kingshowman (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, Ohnotisjamie did specify a reason. They stated clearly that it was UNDUE and was duplicated elsewhere in the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) It's a LEAD. IT IS SUPPOSED TO SUMMARIZE MATERIAL IN THE ARTICLE.

Saying it's UNDUE doesn't make it so. For what reason do you regard it as Undue? That is merely your own perspective speaking. In order to convince me, you will have to not merely ASSERT that it is UNDUE, but provide A REASON WHY it is undue. That is what I mean when I say no reason was provided. You have simply cited a policy without making any effort at explaining why it applies. Simply stating things doesnt make them so, as we should all realizer at Wikipedia. Let's GIVE REASONS for the things we say here.Kingshowman (talk) 20:20, 1 September 20"


 * Now, this being said,I realize now, having more experience, that my somewhat aggressive, impatient, and uncalm conduct and demeanor was not helpful to my position, and I should have bit my tongue and acted in a more reasonable way. I only point this background out to show that I was not blocked for any sort of destruction towards the project, but for some (borderline) aggressive conduct in defense of changes I felt were constructive and important in improving a weak article. I also appreciate, the explanations offered by Anna Frodesiak and Boing! said Zebedee regarding why the accounts from racial supremacy forums have not yet been banned from the project, and the difficulty of adequately immediately stopping such accounts from harming the encylopedia until an adequate case against them can be made.


 * I do, however, feel a sufficient case already exists against "the master"; in his ANI thread he thanks Maunus for teaching him the distinction between the words "propose" and "demonstrate" and that he "hopes to learn more things like this.". No user who does not understand the elementary difference between the two words-- to "propose" a theory, or to "demonstrate" one-- is a competent speaker of English, and thus no such speaker should be editing in Article Space. In dispute resolution, which he brought me to before bringing me to SPI, he was told by the reviewing admin "The Master, you do appear to be having difficulty communicating in English, and competence is required here to contribute at the Wikipedia English Encylopedia, which you seem to be showing to some extent, but not at the level to contribute to article main space. Please try to help on article talk pages until you can show more competence in English". He has not obeyed this, nearly all of his edits contain multiple grammatical errors, and he has no idea how to make sure subjects and verbs agree in English, or that cases agree, and is editing article space in broken English. He has just shown that he confuses two words as distinct as "demonstrate" and "propose", and inserts false claims into articles on the basis of said misunderstanding. There is no reason he has been allowed to edit here for years, it looks like.


 * Again, I apologize to Boing for my anger towards him and that other user when they would not look at the Master's edits, when I repeatedly claimed they were in "broken English" (which they clearly are, as examining even a sentence or two of his prose will demonstrate; he has a very limited English vocabulary, does not understand case agreement, or even subject-verb agreement, and his tone is very inappropriate and reads like poorly machine-translated text) and that he was inserting dubious content from unreliable "journals" exclusively centering around notorious racist pseudo-scientific organization The Pioneer Fund. He is also mass importing text from a User: Mirardre, who has some of this dubious material stored in his pages, to be returned after it gets reverted.


 * I apologize if I caused inconvenience to Anna with the Kim Jong-un userpage humor, though I was using that account to stump for a constructive change to the egregious Defensive gun use page, which also relies exclusively on 20 year old discredited studies from fringe pseudoscientists at fringe institutions, and promotes them as gospel, in contravention to researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who have demonstrated that their results are not even logically possible, for they imply that there are many times more violent crimes prevented by defensive gun use, than total attempted violent crimes. Logic, friends, is binding on each of us; when a result has been shown to be logically impossible, it has been as refuted in the strongest terms which are possible for humankind. I have also repeatedly tried to put in the carefully and exhaustively calculated figures of the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization which reviews all police reports in the US annually to tally the total number of incidents of gun violence. According to this organization, there were 1500 incidents of defensive gun use verified by police report last year. Even if this is off by a factor of 20, and only 5 percent of incidents are reported to police (wildly implausible as Hemenway has shown) that would still mean there would only be 30,000 such incidents annually. Our current article claims estimates range up to 5 million, or 5 times the number of total crimes in the country. And before I raised hell at that article, it said up to 33 million without any demonstrable citation to support this figure, other than a grossly misintreprted graph in an article that criticized the figure of 1 million as ridiculous and absurd! Please, let's use our heads and consider just how laughably implausible this number is for a minute. Wikipedia is repeatedly being hoaxed by sophisticated trolls using dubious evidence cited to laughably fringe non-academic, non-reliable journals, which is all I have tirelessly tried to point out to admins since I got here.


 * I also apologize for the inconvenience caused by socking. However, I never used multiple socks at once and always just serially employed new socks once my identity was discovered, since I have a somewhat particular style, and am not difficult to identify, nor do I try to be (a look at my record will show that I have always admitted my socks as soon as someone made an accusation, so as to not waste time with playing detectives and criminals. Even when checkusers did not discover me, I have confessed when accused, and even connected all my socks for you back to the original account, prior to the discovery. Thus, I have never tried to "lie" about my socks; or used them for vote-stacking or to distort discussions. I have only really jumped the gun on getting a clean start. The only time I have ever used a sock while another account was still active was the Lord and Sovereign of Truth account, as Boing is aware of, and this was honestly only for convenience, since I felt I needed to revert some outrageously unsourced racist edits immediately, but was on another person's computer, and I did not have access to my password, which was saved in Autofill. Vote-stacking or using multiple accounts at the same time has never been my MO. Even in this case I abandoned the original account until the second account was blocked, and did not use multiple accounts at the same time.) I also have confessed all my suspected socks for you, and removed some of the false accusations of accounts I had no connection with, demonstrating my goodwill and good faith towards the project.


 * As has been suggested, I will attempt to return for a clean start in 6 months, and I will, stay away from the cesspool-like articles which are stalked by some extremely odious editors from "message boards to remain nameless", as Manus called them, as these users have been the cause of my recent troubles (if not for which, I probably would not have been noticed on my recent World Champion Editor handle.) Thanks for all of your advising and help.Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I will read this soon. I have a busy weekend coming up. All the best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I just woke up and you've done more socking. I'm starting to think that you simply cannot control yourself. And I scanned the above and it looks exactly like what admins are not going to get into. Is this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?


 * This hour I've invested is about your role at Wikipedia. His English is well above the threshold to edit here. Your socking is a far bigger problem.


 * So, I'm about to walk away from this. You think you're saving Wikipedia this way? One side does something you disagree with, so you sock to make things better? Nice. Thanks for being part of the problem. You want to see Wikipedia crumble? You are causing it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't edit any articles. I simply tried to point out that the user, who is a meat puppet of a permanently banned user, Captain Occam, claims to not know the difference between the words "Demonstration" and "Proposal" and yet is editing articles on Scientific topics and "hopes to learn much more things like that from you and others"(sic) on the ANI page. If you looked more closely at the English he inserts into articles, you would  see how riddled with grammatical errors his prose is, even leaving aside his extraordinarily tendentious perspective.  Anna Frodesiak, if you read this diff, and can look me in the eye and honestly tell me the writer of this sentence is a competent speaker of English, I will eat my hat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nations_and_intelligence&diff=698478148&oldid=698470589
 * "The measurement, correlates and cause  of average intelligence score variation between nations has been a controversial issue in the schools of psychology and economics. It has been shown national intelligence correlates with GDP, health, fertility rate and other variables. 'Both environmental factors, including different stage of Flynn effect ' caused by difference in nutrition and health, and educational attainment, and genetic effect could explain the differences. It has been argued that environmental improvement ' in developing countries could lead to narrowing of IQ difference.' ''"
 * You are much too intelligent and observant to not see how horrendous and ill-formed that prose is, even leaving aside the dubious, sourced to nowhere claims that things have been "shown" which have never been shown, and have been, in actual fact, definitively refuted. I've bolded over a dozen strictly grammatical errors in those few sentences alone, so that it perfectly clear that his English is not above any threshold to write for the public in any capacity in English. You will also note, the much more troubling issue is that his claims are not even sourced and simply declare "it has been shown", "it has been argued" with no support for these sweeping claims-- or he tells us that two factors are "correlated", which is entirely meaningless and does not belong in an encylopedia in and of itself, even if it were true. (It is not.) his claims are outrageous, and even if they were not, I have just shown you as clearly as possible that he is not competent to be editing here, or writing in English for the public. period. He is clearly writing in broken English, and here, "competence is required." I didn't hurt anything or anyone by pointing that out. WP: COMPETENCE is probably the most important and widely ignored policy on the entire project.
 * I don't disagree that using multiple accounts or warring is a problem, but I do not agree in the slightest that using multiple accounts and being guilty of blunt, truthful, fearless speech is more detrimental to the project than users who are unable to craft a sentence without grammatical error, and who insert completely unsourced inflammatory racist propaganda into articles, and edit in a extraordinarily tendentious way to insert fringe discredited pseudoscience into article space. Honestly, if he is considered above the threshold of being able to contribute here, then I have lost all respect for and  interest in the project anyway. Anyone with eyes can see he is not proficient in English from the text cited above. I am sorry to have socked to have brought attention to the fact that, not only is he a tendenintious, SPA racism-only account, who adds unsourced inflammatory, false, and unsourced racist opinions into articles, he is also not able to write English without laughable grammatical errors. And I was perfectly honest those accounts were socks, admitted to them immediately, and I only used them to point out that that user does not understand what it even means to show something scientifically, and lacks basic competence in English needed to produce prose that doesn't need massive copy-editing to fix, even if he were not an East Asian racial supremacist.  Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me be even more clear:


 * Again, you are talking about the articles. Why tell me? Let others sort it out at the talk pages.


 * You are hastily slamming pieces down on the board and losing the game.


 * The other disasterous result of your socking is that it is backfiring. You're new, so you probably don't know this. You blasting the article talk pages does the opposite of what you want.


 * It makes people take the other side. Nobody wants to support the sock side. And it makes others not want to get involved due to the huge mess and sheer volume of words you turn the talk page into.


 * Letting your emotions control your intellect is backfiring.

The tally:
 * You are wasting your own time.
 * You are drawing admins away from other fires.
 * You are making it impossible for you to return.
 * You are helping your adversary win.
 * Those who would join the discussion at the talk pages and easily see the truth, now don't want to get mired in it and do all that reading and figuring out.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So much for "I'm happy to be patient and wait 6 months until July or so, when I may try to return and do some editing on Philosophy articles in need of assistance and would stay away from controversial topics and political issues", sigh. I've tried to offer some help here, but you can only help people who actually want it... so I'm done here, my offer to support a Standard Offer unblock is withdrawn, and this page is now off my watchlist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee, I didn't post at any articles or "sock" in any actual sense. I simply offered my input at the ANI thread of that user, offering the admins there the benefit of my well-informed and well-founded observations, and immediately admitted the accounts were mine. What, precisely, are you upset about? I was only offering my considerable assistance to you good people. I even cleaned up my sock puppet page for you and added several accounts for you that you had yet to discover, as a token of my good faith and good will. As you will see in reviewing my contributions, I am both a gentleman and a scholar..Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee, and Anna Frodesiak, I have even further demonstrated my good will and loyal service to your fine encylopedia by turning all of my socks to the Wikipedia police force and adding them to the Sock Puppet page. I think, again, the record will show I am a gentleman and a scholar, and to boot, one of the finest, most distinguished editors this web log has ever seen. Until we meet again, old friends! It has been a pleasure conversing with you both. Auf Wiedersehen!Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So, what's the bottom line here? Can we expect more socking? Are you going to wait? Anna Frodesiak(talk) 23:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I repent! I am turning away from the darkness, and towards the light, and quitting socks for good! You have my word.  As I am known around here for my fearless truth-telling, you can indeed rely on my unimpeachable truthfulness in this matter; of this, I assure you. For I only even ever socked so as to better serve Truth. I want to contribute positively here in the future, and would like to be allowed to do that, and I'm sorry I shared my opinions via dirty socks at the admin notice board, no matter how helpful and accurate those opinions may have been. I promise that I will not edit, post, or create an new accounts for at least 6 months.  Even should you beg me to return more quickly, I shall refuse your entreaties! You will not see any new accounts from me nor hear from me until that time passes.
 * Anna Frodesiak, thank you for taking the time to encourage me to stop violating my block and to seek a return through the standard offer. I very much appreciate what you've done here. All the best to you as well! I just hope that everyone won't miss me and my marvelous contributions too greatly, not to mention all the fun and games and excitement we've had together! Cheer up, old friends! I will be back before you know it! I shall leave you, comrades, with the wise words of Kim Jong-Un: "Let all of us strive for greater victory in the new year filled with high ambition and unwavering confidence and firmly united behind the Party with a single heart."
 * With Great Love For You All,
 * Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty, that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that the time had arrived when it was better for me to die and be released from trouble. . ..

The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our separate ways, I to die, and you to live. Which of these two is better only God knows." --Socrates, the true Parrhesiast, as he laid down his life to tell the Truth, for his courageous service as the gadfly to the slumbering Athenians, reminding them to take care of their selves, and their immortal souls, and to do so by taking care of the Truth. And I, too, must now give my life for the sake of Truth, for my fearless, courageous service as the gadfly to the Wikipedians. Farewell, Wikipedians.Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am very pleased to hear this. I also wish you could return now. When you do return, I think you can be a great asset and make huge changes to how things happen here. It will be nice to have you on our side. :) I should remove talk access to this page very soon. It it quite against the way we do things to have this channel open while your main account's page is talk access revoked. Shall we see you in 6 months then? Simply read Appealing a block, then visit the unblock requests system (UTRS). You can ask them to email me then for an endorsement if you like. Please keep your eyes away from the articles that get under your skin. Check back in 6 months and you will probably see them all sorted out. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I will take the hemlock! Remove my talk page access, blessed Crito! Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. But you pay up and don't fail to take care. Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

("But why should we, blessed Crito, care so much about the opinion of the many? The best people, who are more deserving of our attention, will believe that the matter was handled in just the way it was.") Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You know, I'd bet you are a very interesting and nice person in real life. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "He who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements when they associate with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge--who, if not he, is likely to attain to the knowledge of true being? And therefore, so far as that is concerned, I not only do not grieve, but I have great hopes that there is something in store for the dead, and as has been said of old, something better for the good than for the wicked." Farewell, old friends!Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An Epitaph for Kingshowman: The True Parrhesiast, Fearless Truth-Teller, and Gadfly to the Wikipedians
“It has been proved to us by experience that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body—the soul by herself must behold things by themselves: and then we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers—wisdom; not while we live, but, as the argument shows, only after death: for if while in company with the body the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things follows—either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death. For then, and not till then, the soul will be parted from the body and exist by herself alone. In this present life, we think that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible intercourse or communion with the body, and do not suffer the contagion of the bodily nature, but keep ourselves pure until the hour when god himself is pleased to release us. And thus getting rid of the foolishness of the body we may expect to be pure and hold converse with the pure, and to know of ourselves all that exists in perfection unalloyed, which, I take it, is no other than the truth. For the impure are not permitted to lay hold of the pure.”--Supreme Leader of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And with that lovely sentiment, I shall in good faith revoke your talk access.


 * Remember, when you return, the secret to getting the article the way you want is this: short, concise posts addressed to those you wish to take your side, then wait. That is golden advice, my friend.


 * See you in six months. I wish you an enjoyable sabbatical. My best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)