Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sugaar

Bias
Regarding Sugaar's response, you have to remember that he's quite biased. He considers quoting Oxford English Dictionary as POV pushing. And this is the alleged Nazi, Nordicist, etc...version of the page White people. Also read my edit summary here and how some of "A group of veteran wikipedians" as he described it edited all this by simply saying "reverting vandalism", etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulean (talk • contribs)


 * You appear to be using the word 'bias' to imply 'wary of persons who are supporters of Nazism'. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't consider such an approach to be a policy violation. Addhoc 14:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be using the sentence "wary of persons who are supporters of Nazism" to discredit your opponents views. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't consider such an approach or defintion in this context to be valid. Lukas19 12:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, firstly, your new user name is a massive improvement. Secondly, we appear to disagree about the essay WP:SPADE, I agree with Sugaar and Shell that it represents common sense, however you oppose this interpretation of policy. Finally, the purpose of an RfC isn't to continue a debate until one side dies from exhaustion. Accordingly, I'm inclined to walk away from this, because I doubt there is going to be any futher meaningful progress. Addhoc 12:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPADE also has a "While we must remain civil" clause which was lacking in Sugaar's behaviour, not to mention it is just an essay and not on par with WP:NPA. Lukas19 13:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Alun
This is my response to Alun, why I used the word "clueless". Also I loved how he changed his wordings from

"Please refrain from personal attacks, it reflects more on you than anyone else. If I fail to fully understand what you are saying then maybe it reflects an inability on your part to express yourself clearly. You do not seem to be able to stick to a specific point." to

"I suggested that if I was clueless maybe it was because he was not making himself clear enough" as he claimed in the project page.

Also as you can see in the diffs, I didnt accuse him of any PA's. He told me to "Please refrain from personal attacks, it reflects more on you than anyone else" and I answered "I think saying that you are clueless about what I'm saying is less of a personal insult than "If I fail to fully understand what you are saying then maybe it reflects an inability on your part to express yourself clearly."" Thulean 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A personal attack should be an insult equivalent to calling someone an idiot, I would concur that in this dispute the phrase is being used in an unhelpful manner. However, I am personally more disappointed with Shell for implying that Sugaar indicating that he won't vote for her is a personal attack, than your example. Addhoc 14:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not indicate that his choice of voting was a personal attack. Please read the entire statement and the header of the section it falls under.  The snide comments on my ArbCom questions page were a bit over the top, but he has since removed several of those statements. Shell babelfish 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I note you have rephrased to clarify. Addhoc 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I'm going to make a comment here, a comment I've repeated a few times in these types of cases: You are responsible for your own behaviour and you will be held accountable for it by your peers. While I definitely see some back and forth in this case, and I don't believe anyone here to be truly innocent, I do see numerous cases of unacceptable behaviour on the part of Sugaar and since this is a RfC the behaviour that needs to be discussed is his. When editing wikipedia you're expected to act like an adult. We don't always succeed, but that is the expectation. Regardless of what another editor does, you need to behave appropriately. You need to take the higher ground. If someone harasses you, don't respond in kind, instead report it and move on as best you can until they're appropriately dealt with. Failing to do so gets you in to trouble. --Crossmr 07:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with your comments, Crossmr. My only comment would be that it perhaps would be more appropriate to suggest that Sugaar handles any future disagreements in a dispassionate manner. Not that my choice of words is always very clever, of course. Addhoc 14:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is kind of the point. Either debate the point like an adult, or if you don't feel you can do so, bring it up for discussion elsewhere and get some outside perspective on it. Warnings are not the end of the world. I've even got ones I consider unjustified sitting in my archives simply because at the time I didn't want to make a situation worse. I have removed any that were blatantly abusive. Because I do a lot of new page patrol, it does attract all kinds of attention, usually negative from people who are misbehaving in one way or another. Heck a month into a wiki-break and I was still getting anon-IPs vandalizing my user page. You need to be an adult about these things though.--Crossmr 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Crossmr. I have reviewed all the referenced evidence presented by both sides.  I am a new editor and I can empathize with Sugaar's frustration, however it does not justify the complained of conduct towards other editors after the number of warnings given and information provided to seek redress of what he claims to be improper warnings.  Furthermore, just because others may be culpable of misconduct in this matter does not mitigate Sugaar's culpability. From the evidence presented this appears to be a course of conduct and not a heat of the moment type response.  Based on the evidence I cannot say that the block was an abuse of discretion.--Dtwarren 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I must protest: I believe I have acted maturely. What I have got lost is in WP pages and definitively that's not just my fault. How should I know that saying that a spade is a spade is wrong?

In fact is it really wrong? How wrong? Is it worst than disruptive editing and chasing people out of an article on ideological grounds and with wikilawyering tactics?

The RfC is on me because Shell insisted on opening an RfC. Guess I could, and probably I should have opened an RfC on Thulean first of all, but I'm not the lawyering type: I prefer to solve disputes through honest discussion. The problem is that for some honesty is a sin worse than anything else. I can't agree with that, much less when we are trying to edit an encyclopedia that attempts to approximate truth in its contents.

Talking plain and direct may be inappropiate, and even against policy. I swallow that, no problem. But beyond that there are so many other problems that it's nearly trivial in comparison and I believe any involved administrator can't but take all them in account and make his/her best to be neutral and fair, not to take sides and ignore all (so widespread) criticisms.

This RfC, believe it or not is not just about me: it is about Thulean and Shell Kinney and it is about the disaster that these two have brought to the White people article, each one within their scope of responsability.

Also, do you think that whinning all the time at any real or imaginary PA is mature? Do you think that blocking a user "because I have a personal problem" is mature? It is not. --Sugaar 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the RfC is about you. The RfC isn't about the White people article, or Thulean. Its a request for comment on the appropriateness of the block and your conduct leading up to that. You didn't behave maturely and threatened edit warring more than once during a dispute process. Even after being presented with the NPA policy, at which point you were aware of it, you continued to violate it over and over again. You are to keep your comments about articles to the content of the articles, not muddy the discussion but continually going after other editors. Whether you wrote coherently and calmly is no different than if you wrote it in all caps with excessive punctuation. The fact is, you continued to violate that policy over and over.I don't believe every incident of evidence provided was an attack as described, however there are some there, and some occurred after you were given the policy to read.--Crossmr 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NO. The RfC is about my behaviour (not my person) in the context of the White people article, in the context of Thulean's irruption, in the context of Thulean's wikilawyering persecution of all other editors in that page, in the context of Shell Kinney unbalanced intervention and in the context of my search for answers and solutions to a problem that is not just MY problem but WIKIPEDIA's problem.
 * You can't decontextualize:
 * First because this is not a trial but a discussion
 * Second becuase all what is discussed here has a context and that context is that article and tha dispute around it.
 * We are not discussing my actuation in the Foo article or the RFI against XX, we are always discussing my behaviour in a context that involves many other people: consolidated editors of that article (who have clearly supported my statement), Thulean (disruptive new editor came from nowhere) and Shell Kinney (fast handed adminitrator who saw only one side to the issue).
 * Things are not isolated they have a context and it is in that context where they must be studied and, if necessary, judged. You do very badly trying to decontextualize the issue.
 * In fact if this RfC exist it is because I did not want to open an RfC on Shell Kinney, because I suspected it would be unhelpful and would only bring more trouble and discussion.
 * And NO also becuase, if you have bothered to read the White people's article discussion, you will have noticed that, after the warn was ratified at ANI and my doubts about the scope of NPA clarified, I made a huge effort to reach an agreement and behave reasonably and even calm down other's rage.
 * This was useless, because at the slightest irony, Thulean run to Shell and she blocked me, unjustly, against the letter and spirit of the policy and without looking much at the issue at all. This way, Shell facilitated (I think that unwillingly but with poor criteria anyhow) the true goals of Thulean that weren't but to displace editors who had not just much more experience but also a clear concept of what NPOV and consensus mean.
 * I have not violated NPA (at least in any significative manner) after the first and only warn was clarified. That's perfectly clear. That's why I insist that the block is totally out of place. --Sugaar 21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no context for negative behaviour. This was the crux of my comment. Regardless of how Shell behaved, or Thulean or anyone else, you behaved poorly. You were in control of your behaviour and chose to make the comments you made at the time you made them in the way you made them. No one forced you to behave as you did. If you want to try and excuse your behaviour and claim someone else made you respond harshly, well I'd say we're pretty much done here. If you need clarification on the scope of the RFC, you can see the front page, its in your name, and there are two questions posed for comment. Neither of which say "Was Sugaar okay in behaving harshly because of the way Thulean prodded him?". The question is whether or not you violated NPA and Civil and whether or not the block was appropriate. The first doesn't require context, the second does. The first creates the context for the second. Even if Thulean was calling you the most horrible names in the book up and down, it doesn't justify responding in kind or in any negative manner. Wikipedia is not your home, not your castle, its an internet site which you can walk away from anytime. Therefore you should always take the highroad with your behaviour. Failing that, a block can be justified. Regardless of whether or not you felt the warning was legitimate or proper, the policy was still presented to you and you should have read it and acted accordingly. The comment you recently made below shows me that you haven't really read and understood it, or you're making another choice.--Crossmr 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He's been explained of this over and over and over. That's why Shell gave him 6 hour block finally. Now this whole thing seems to be a deja vu again. Please read:


 * User_talk:Shell_Kinney
 * User_talk:Shell_Kinney
 * User_talk:Shell_Kinney
 * User_talk:Shell_Kinney


 * These are not even all of it. I'm bringing these up again because the first page is too long and some people may miss the extensiveness of how Sugaar was explained of various policies...Lukas19 10:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope of this RFC
Several people have made claims that my actions were one-sided. Since this RfC was already lengthy, I did not include interactions that didn't involve Sugaar and myself. However, since these claims have been made, I think its important to point out that I have warned 3 other editors involved in the dispute, chased down and banned Eukasta (a highly disruptive editor who did little other than attack the editors on White people) and his many sockpuppets and reverted, investigated and banned other accounts created solely to attack and harass editors involved in the White people article (this is still in progress due to a concerted outside influence). Its also important to note that I have absolutely no doubt that Sugaar is not the only editor in that dispute who has made personal attacks. Thulean has certainly made inappropriate comments and contrary to claims of favoritism, you can see directly on my talk page where I have turned down Thulean's requests a number of times, warned him about his behavior and cautioned him to stick to the mediation and avoid spreading the dispute.

I also wanted to touch on one other comment. Sugaar has complained that I drug up every mistake he's ever made; this was certainly not the intent. If editors review my warning and block as asked, its important that they understand what my basis was for those decisions - I could have left them to wade through Sugaar's contributions, but I felt that would be asking a bit much. The diffs provided are limited to the White people dispute and subsequent interactions between Sugaar and myself; they establish the pattern of behavior when dealing with this particular dispute. As I stated in the opening paragraph, Sugaar has a wealth of other contributions, especially to the Basque portal, which show his normal behavior is exemplary. This is one of the reasons the final block for persistent personal attacks was only 6 hours instead of the more standard 24 - I think this dispute is out of character. Shell babelfish 12:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As it happens, your contributions to Wikipedia in the capacity of editor and custodian have also otherwise been exemplary. Addhoc 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For what I know, your interventions in other issues are ok with me. It is this particular issue where you have not found your neutrality balance and where you have clearly developed a personal animosity against me (and a favoritism for DE Thulean) what worries me. I have asked you to recuse yourself in such grounds and you have ignored my request once and again.
 * You also have clearly gone well beyond the scope of this dispute by digging in issues that are before the warn (and subsequent discussion) and, therefore, before my realization of the scope of WP:NPA and acceptance of its limitations. All those issues are clearly (even if implicitly) included there and you are just trying to justify yourself by bringing them to light.
 * You have clearly contravened policy (WP:BLOCK) by issuing a block as punishment and out of personal motivations, additionaly without any sort of clear justification. With that you have in help favored DE and wikilawyering. I have more than sufficient reasons to question your behaviour in that aspect and I can't but follow with the correct procedure until either you admit your part of error or someone else does for you.
 * It would be much easier if you admitted some errors. But it seems you are perfect. Sorry to tell you but nobody is perfect and we all commit errors. You should know that well and it would say a lot in your favor if you accepted your part of fault. But I have yet to see any sign of self-criticism in you. --Sugaar 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its very telling that you are ok with all of the other warns and blocks surrounding the dispute, just not your own. You have a clear pattern of attacks during the dispute on White people - I certainly didn't go back and include all of them; you were warned because of those continuing attacks by at least 6 separate people.  When you did not desist, you were given a short block in order to stop the attacks, not in order to punish you.  You make some broad assumptions about my reasoning and behavior despite the weeks of conversation we had which said otherwise - even after more than 17 people commented via the two posts at AN/I, you were still unswayed and claimed that admins just stuck up for each other (not all of the responders were even admins).  I opened this RfC for you so that you could have the comments by non-admins like you wanted and yet you found reason to complain about it as well.  Basically at this point I don't think there is anything further I can do for you. Shell babelfish 09:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any other blocks surrounding this dispute (except some suspected sockpuppets/clear vandals maybe). In general I agree with the warns given by sysops in the right manner: with sufficient info and clarity. Warns are meant to be pedagogical.
 * I disagree with blocks used in regards to WP:NPA, as the very letter of that policy and WP:BLOCK strongly suggest. We have discussed this before and all you have never come with anything that supports your decission. That's very clear and that should have made you rethink it and accept at least partly my appeal, once you calmed down.
 * I did desist and made my best to keep the discusion with Thulean civilized. It was extermely difficult because to my lenghty, well documented statements he simply responded negatively and in a despreciative manner. No significative constructive proposal came from Thulean in all this time. Only castling in his positions and hoping that some "authority" would give him some reason.
 * Still a single slip into irony, specially after such a huge effort to come to terms with this disruptive element on my side, can't be considered reason for a block. It doesn't even merit a second warn surely.
 * I do not want RfCs, they can't overrule your block. I want justice and hence a good hearing for my appeal. Something that I am still waiting for in ANI, where the appeal clearly must be made first of all.
 * I welcome all opinions, specially good willed ones, wether I agree with them or not. But the matter of contention is now: was the block justified? I say that clearly it was not and must be reviwed. And this RfC helps nothing to that.
 * The secondary matter of contention is: are you truly neutral and why? I suspect it's just some sort of "color-blindness" (il-advised good-will) but still you happen to be strongly one-sided in favor of the main disruptive editor of this conflict, favoring his wikilawyering tactics and making the conflict to grow and not to decrease. For this reason I have asked and ask you to recuse yourself and be replaced by other(s) administrator(s) (there are hundreds, I don't know why it has always to be you) in futher disputes re. Thulean, White people article or myself.
 * I dont know how this RfC can help to anything of this dispute, still freezing at ANi for lack daring administrators ready to consider the appeal. --Sugaar 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC for Thulean
I would support a RfC established to demonstrate that in the context of Thule society, his choice of user name isn't conducive to a harmonious editing environment. Also, the RfC could provide clarification that in accordance with the essay WP:SPADE describing someone who is, for example, sympathetic to nazism or pro-aryan, as such, isn't a policy violation. Addhoc 14:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In context of Swedish Resistance Movement, is a nick involving Swedish also not "conducive to a harmonious editing environment"? Thulean 15:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or maybe we should support "a RfC established to demonstrate that in the context of American Nazi Party, a choice of nick involving American isn't conducive to a harmonious editing environment"? Thulean 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm also isn't conducive to a harmonious editing environment... Addhoc 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While that is a very common-sense essay, I'm not sure how "you are terribly twisted" or "Wikipedia enemy number one" would be calling a spade a spade? Shell babelfish 15:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already indicated that it would be preferable for Sugaar to handle situations in a dispassionate manner. Addhoc 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, neither your implications here and here  are conducive to a harmonious editing environment and they can be considered as personal attacks, especially considering that you are making assumptions simply by your interpretation of my nick which seems to be too confined not to include other meanings.

As for my sarcastic comments, I made them to point out that giving knee-jerk reactions based on nicks is not only uncivil, it is also unconstructive and stupid. Clearly, people may be offended by many nicks, not only because of its "association" with Nazis but with also with other violent ideologies. Nicks involving communist may be associated with Stalin, nicks involving muslim may be associated with terrorism. You can come up with thousands of associations like those which may offend people and cause those people to be "wary" towards some editors. While they can keep that kinda dogmatic thinking to themselves, they are not justified to make personal attacks. That's why in Wikipedia, you have to comment on content, not on editor. This is a clear and established guideline, unlike WP:SPADE which you've pointed out to many times. And I explained my choice of nick here, however I'm considering about getting a new account. It's not worth fighting with such knee jerk reactions and ridiculous dogmas. Thulean 16:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to get a new account, have a look at Changing username. Addhoc 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd gladly participate in an RfC on Thulean's behaviour and also on Shell Kinney's one but I'm not in situation of initiating them, as they would probably be used against me as almost anything I've done before, including posting my appeals at ANI and requesting mediation. Curiously not a single one of my constrctive apportations have been considered, what says a lot about the bias of some people.

Also I must say I have never said anything with "animus injuriandi" but just the truth as I saw it. I also don't beleive Thulean is offended by any single one of my comments. He knows perfectly that they are the truth (or at least a good approximation) and that's why he's fighting me with such twisted tactics.

I have firm trust in common sense and Wikipedia spirit (consensus, NPOV, etc.) and that's why I am appealing the block and recusing Shell. --Sugaar 20:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that going to ArbCom is a double edged sword, everyone, including the editor bringing the case, effectively becomes a defendant. However, instigating a RfC for the purpose of discussing if an editor should change their user name doesn't carry any meaningful risk. Addhoc 20:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, the most common context of Thulean seems to be referencing the Thule society, so it's an easy mistake to make(especially when you delete quotes about Nazis from the user pages of others). And while context can change the meaning of the word, the prevaling context sometimes prevents the usage of a word that is otherwise harmless, and meant in a context that is harmless.  For example, the word negro literally means black in Spanish, but in the context within the English language, it is often considered a racial slur, as it's the prevailing context within English speaking countries.  Also, the prevailing context of Monkey is harmless, and referring to a certain species of mammal, but taken out of that context, is also a racial slur.  If your name has any meaning in any language you're aware of, you'll probably want to explain the meaning behind it on your userpage to avoid future arguments.


 * I'm lucky, I made up my name, and it's meaningless without me.--Vercalos 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

When I delete quotes about Nazis from the user pages of others???????? Feel free to ask for checkuser. In the mean time, if you are going to make idiotic baseless accusations, you can do the same to Sugaar Lukas19 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thulean, I think regardless of where the nickname came from it has rather unfortunate ties to extreme groups. Instead of spending all of your time at Wikipedia defending yourself for the name, it might be best to ask to have the username changed. Shell babelfish 09:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The name is not really the problem, as I read in some user talk page's: if we are going to have these kind of people around here, it's better they wear badges, so everybody can see who they are.
 * The problem is the attitude. Wikipedia is not designed for that kind of mentality: it's designed for good-willed editors who are able to coooperate and reach consensus (more or less), for people who really want NPOV informative articles and not propaganda ultra-POV ones, for people whose "victory" is the consecution of good entries or at least NPOV ones, not for people whose only aim is to win a personal and ideological war, conquering the article for themselves and their ideology.
 * The name did strike but it was associated with mass edits of clear POV in the context of an article that is like honey for certain ideologized "flies" and that has suffered the same kind of POV attacks once and again in its history. --Sugaar 09:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I also consider these as highly uncivil and possibly as personal attacks because not only I am one of "these kinda people" (referring to extremists and Nazis from the context) who should "wear badges" so everybody can see who we are but also "Wikipedia is not designed designed for that kind of mentality: it's designed for good-willed editors". Lukas19 12:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Waves a white flag - hang on guys, this isn't the place to continue the dispute. If either of you needs assistance understanding the options in our dispute resolution process or how to report certain problems, I or I'm sure many other experienced editors would be happy to help you, but please, lets do this the right way.  If neither of you wants to use those processes, it would be best if you tried avoiding each other for a bit or found some other way that you can work together. Shell babelfish 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, do tell me a way to ignore Sugaar when he keeps throwing implications towards me again, without involving another lengthy bureaucratic process. Lukas19 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehm... who's Lukas19? He talks like if he was Thulean...
 * Anyhow, I just copied the phrase from somehwere else. It was not my original idea but I feel better when people is frank and does not hide under covers, so I did not have any problem with your "explicit" name.
 * But it seems I have persuaded you, what wasn't my intention really.
 * Regarding the "dispute", I have tried to disengage from this element by exiting the White people discussion and article. But he keeps persecuting me, it seems.
 * I have no dispute with Thulean/Lukas at this moment. But as I said in ANI, you never know. What I want is to solve the dispute with Shell Kinney about the validity of the block and her recusal in further cases involving me, Thulean or the disputed article, that's all. --Sugaar 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Thulean/Lukas, I apologize for accusing you of removing content from user pages. I misread Addhoc's response as well as the edit summary.  Next time, however, please do not call me an idiot.--Vercalos 02:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Worry not the next time he'll place a dozen warnings for NPAs in your user talk page and will open an RFI against you. --Sugaar 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to read WP:CIVIL a little more carefully as well as my comments above. Just because something may or may not be true doesn't give you a license to speak in a disparaging tone about it, even in the guise of "factuality" or calling a spade a spade. That is what got this whole situation going.--Crossmr 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Vercalos, next time, please read more carefully what you are responding to. Besides Addhoc's response, you seem to have misunderstood my response as well. I didnt call you an idiot, I called your accusations idiotic. There's a big difference...Lukas19 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

PA in the RfC discussion?
I just noticed this comment from Thulean-Lukas: When I delete quotes about Nazis from the user pages of others???????? Feel free to ask for checkuser. In the mean time, if you are going to make idiotic baseless accusations, you can do the same to Sugaar Lukas19 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Are you accusing me of writing such obscene comment (under a sockpuppet or whatever)? That is indeed a personal attack (and with clear bad faith and ill will) - apart of needlessly insulting a commenter. Such insinuations are totally out of place and hereby I ask you to apologize or retrieve those accusations. --Sugaar 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar you may or may not be sockpuppeteering but you have and continue to use slanderous language as a means of communicating your disapproval of those users who happen to think differently than you on any number of unrelated subjects. Everytime you accuse someone of racism or of belonging to what you call a fringe or antisocial group—without any evidence whatsoever—it is you yourself who end up appearing fanatical and extreme in the eyes of moderate and temperate users. I strongly suggest that you tone down your hyperbolic rhetoric and make an effort, however painful, to join those seeking to reach actual understanding and consensus. I say this with the respect that I feel should be accorded to any and all who come here truly seeking to contribute and to learn in good faith.--Balino-Antimod 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont believe his misunderstanding of the sentence was in good faith. We are maybe past good faith here, in this debate, but Sugaar's english seems to be adequate. He should have understood the if clause. He seems to misunderstand anyone who disagrees with him ranging from not reading Oxford Dictionary definitions to accusing Shell that he did not accept meditation when applied to Arb...Lukas19 10:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Slanderous"? What is slanderous in that comment. It is the insinuation by Thulean/Lukas which is slanderous.
 * And as I said in my talk page: I am not sockpuppeteering nor I could do it easily as I have a single cable static IP. Plus I do have ethics and, if I you can make a criticism to my behaviour, is that I talk too frankly and directly, sometimes without measuring well the possible consequences maybe.
 * And not: I am not getting back into that rat-trap of White peoples article, where I only got involved to support Wikipedia NPOV policy. I don't believe in the existence of any white people, I can well stay doing something else while the article sinks in a dismaying racialist POV propaganda pamphlet. Someone probably in the future will have the good idea to propose it for deletion, I hope. --Sugaar 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And what about this?
A brand new user's first edit is a comment that reads: Sugaar is communistic anti-royalist separatist has made multiple claim to these effect much times over. Communismus is dead, separatism is proven evil degenerate think in league with homosexual perversins and anti-nobility sentiment. What is indefensible by sane people of proud white stocks.--DerStormtroper 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The rest of his/her edits are a large speech at his/her userpage in what seems Romanian and whose content I really don't want to know. What do I do? I report him? Is it worth the effort? Really, I pass. --Sugaar 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just gave him a warning for personal attacks..--Vercalos 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact.. His name looks very familiar, and I think he might be a sockpuppet of another banned user...--Vercalos 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest, Vercalos. I really don't want to remove much conflictive issues, specially while this issue is not fully closed. I'm not the kind of person that goes around issuing warnings (I have not issued a warning in my life) but I can't but welcome that others do it when necessary. --Sugaar 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the comment, because it attempted to create a thread on the RfC page, which isn't allowed. Addhoc 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also has been indefinately blocked... Addhoc 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)