Hauskalainen

--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)== npovn ==

[1] Jesanj (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Death Panel

Hi Hauskalainen,

I take the imputations you have made regarding me and another editor being supporters of the BNP seriously and regard them to be defamation. This should not be taken as a legal threat, but I would be grateful if you could refactor your posts in the thread so as to remove the material which is causing offence. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did accidentally miss some text from my post and have now corrected it. I did not intend to say you were a BNP supporter. I noticed that you had edited the British National Party article recently and that was what I said, and which I stand by. I did not even look at your edit and even if I had I could not conclude or intend to say that you are a supporter of the BNP. If it was possible to read it that way, then I apologise. I have edited the remarks to make it make sense (I see now that it was incomplete).

It is true that you and Steven Slater have edited the article about the BNP which is a tiny and insignificant extremist party in the UK. I did find it strange that two people who edit that article should descend and comment on the NPOV issue raised by Jesanj; especially when Jesanj has also mentioned in the past a claim that I did not understand at all until I googled the matter and it led me to a LaRouche organization website. I have no idea if he did get that comment from Larouche or invented it himself independently but this has aroused suspicion because the LaRouche organization seems to me to be an extreme political organization not at all unlike the BNP. There is also another connection I have found between Jesanj's edits and the LaRouche organization which for the time being I will not reveal publicly. Furthermore, an editor who was found to be a sock of a known LaRouche editor and who was apparently editing from a Larouche IP address was actively involved in supporting Jesanj in another edit dispute I have had with Jesanj. That user has now been blocked from editing WP. Here we have an editor (Jesanj) trying to justify that Palin was talking about NICE when there is no evidence for that. And now at NPONV we have a group of editors with editing connections to matters of extreme right wing / Nazi like organizations all seem to wish to see preserved in WP the same thing. An association, no matter how remote and unlikely between NICE and Death Panels. Jesanj also wants to connect NICE and the IPAB! Both are non mainstream (or extremist) views, which is why I keep removing his multiple attempts to add POV bias to WP. The combination of factors i describe is, I believe, a prima facia case for believing that there may not be any independence in the views being expressed by SOME of the editors who have commented on the NPOV issue. The simple fact is that Palin did not refer to NICE as a death panel and as far as we know, she did not even wish to imply that. She has had plenty of opportunity to clarify her comments and not once has she mentioned NICE. The position of the UK journalists is absurd because it has no foundation and as far as anyone can tell, so only an extremist would wish to support that view. To repeat it twice in different places when there is already a reference to NICE as a potential "death panel" candidate in the article is taking liberties, and up with this we should not put. Which is why I deleted two of the references and left the third in. Hauskalainen (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please could you remove the offending comments from the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you to refrain from PA's and to not accuse other editors of colusion and breaking wikipedias rules without firm evidance. I also ask you to apploigise for what is an unfounded and ill thought oout accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave some firm evidence. The observation is my own and I have made all but one observation public. I have given my reason for making it clear that I have the suspicion of connectivity which may be collusion. I have said that the evidence is prima facie and not based on anything more than the evidence I have presented plus the information I am keeping back. If necessary I will inform an Administrator of the other evidence that I have, but I do not think that would be helpful for the editor concerned for this to get that far. I have nothing to apologise for given that I have been prepared to put the evidence (most of it at least) on the table. You should not be offended really IMHO because the point of coming to a noticeboard is to get opinions from independent editors. As on the face of it you all have something very much in common you should be happy to drop out of the argument and let other editors who do not have a proclivity to editing articles on extremist politics to make their comments known. That's all that we expect from any noticeboard. Comments from the interested parties plus assistance from disconnected ones. You do not appear to be disconnected from this subject or some of the other editors who have commented. Hauskalainen (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask again that you withdraw the accusation. If not then I susgest you take it to ANI. Asking other users to not comment on pages is not what is expected at notice boards, but not making PA's is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I could take it to ANI but I choose not to. You have the choice to take it ANI but I think on balance I have been fair in laying out the facts as I see them. I am prepared to repeat them at ANI if needs be but I doubt that this is necessary. There is a prima facie case for an unusual connection between you guys and I think it would be least harmful all round if you just let it be and stand aside to let other editors with no connection to editing articles on extremist political subjects to make their own comments. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then I shall launch the ANI with former IP agrement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Beat ya'! WP:AN/I#Hauskalainen. --FormerIP (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You now have the chance to put your evidacne before an admin. I shall be interested to see it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

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

In your unblock appeal, which will be reviewed by an administrator, you may either present this evidence of collusion and the affiliation with the right wing topics these editors have contributed to, or you might confirm you will retract those allegations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have liked to have had a chance to see his evidance and to have defended my self against it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He can present it as part of the unblock request; if his allegations are founded and sourced then the block can be immediately lifted and I trouted - but making allegations and threatening disclosure of the evidence as a means of attempting to sway consensus is not permissible. Alternatively, the editor can retract the allegations - they may wish to present "evidence" for remarks in some other venue of dispute resolution, if desired - and be unblocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have now enacted the sanction I thought I had placed earlier. I must have not completed a field or something and disregarded any notice of such before placing the block template here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

An accusation has been made against me at ANI. No notification of that discussion was given to me by the person placing the notice there, contrary to policy. I would like to comment on the accusations at ANI but because I have been blocked from editing I cannot do so. Please unblock my account so that I can defend my actions.

Decline reason:

That is not a valid reason for unblocking. You must address your actions and the reason for your block. TNXMan 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

---

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

You were notified above at User talk:Hauskalainen#Death panel.[2]. You have the opportunity to respond here. TFD (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it possilbe to allow the user to present his evidacne at ANI?Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in a discussion before where the user posted evidence to their talkpage and it was copied across by other users. In that case, though, I think it was because there was an ongoing discussion affecting the user unrelated to the block. Not sure it would normally be done as an alternative to following the standard unblock procedure, although I wouldn't object. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is now moot. The user has had two days to present his evidance and had nor done so. It seems to me therefore he had none.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel I need to jump in here and make an observation. This user has long since been attacking other users, either on their respectable talk pages, noticeboards, or his own talk page. He refuses help and input from anyone who attempts to lead him to the right direction, and accuses everyone of being a sock. I think this block has been coming and needs to stay in place for awhile, either until he can follow policies and be civil or he can make his case for the above issue. Dusti^*poke* 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

A block was placed on my user account some nmonths ago for reasons I am not too clear about. I have gone back and checked my user talk page. I see that I had clearly apologised to a user who wrongly thought that I had made an allegation against him being a member of a radical political party. I do not believe that I had made such an allegation (it was certainly not my intention) though I did at the time check my earlier edit and added some missing text, and thus had corrected that when the matter immediately after the issue was raised with me. It is very clear that I had apologised publicly and instantly to him in clear and precise language for an edit which he thought conveyed that impression. I therefore think the block was placed for a different matter. There was also an allegation I had made about possible collusion between an editor I had been in dispute with and another editor who began engaging in the dispute despite not having an obvious edit history at the article. This person it seems had recently edited articles relating to a radical UK political party. The editor who I was in dispute with who had also in the past espoused a highly unusual opinion to me about a matter which I had discovered throuugh Google was traceable to another radical political party of similar leanings in the US. I now wish to state fully, and on the record, that I accept that this connection was tenuous and was certainly not evidence sufficiently strong to warrant the allagation that I had made of collusion in a dispute. Having withdawn this allegation I respectfully request that my account is now unblocked.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have a long history of contentious and troublesome editing of various kinds, apparently lacking either the will or the ability to collaborate and try to seek consensus. You have frequently been uncivil and obstructive, and you have possibly the biggest case I have ever seen of a paranoid belief that anyone who disagrees with you and agrees with someone else must be a sockpuppet. I do not have the remotest interest in any wikilawyering about the exact details of one particular case: your overall history justifies the block. Gerardw wrote to another blocked user with a long history of problems It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It "has a most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going to get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system. I think that is a pretty good description of why you should remain blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Comment and question. I have a complaint I would like to lodge about previous personal attacks/harrassment from this user before they are unblocked. Should I complain here? Jesanj (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, this page is not the complaints department. See WP:DR for how to resolve disagreements. Can somebody please provide the diff of the attack for which this editor was blocked?  Sandstein  18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You would obviously have to ask the blocking administrator which particular edit or edits were the immediate cause, but it seems likely that this may be one of the edits that Hauskalainen rightly or wrongly thinks were instrumental, judging from the comments in the last unblock request. (If so it is interesting to read that an editor "wrongly thought that I had made an allegation against him"). This is probably also relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#Hauskalainen. TFD (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have linked to that. I had read it in the course of research before deciding on the unblock, but I worked my way through so much of Hauskalainen's editing history and so many reports and discussions about his/her editing on various noticeboards that that one got lost somewhere in amongst all the others in my mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's edits eerily similar to Hauskalainen

Anonymous IP 115.188.221.123 has an edit pattern eerily similar to Hauskalainen's, including edit wars over the same American domestic policy articles though both users are ostensibly outside the U.S. I don't know if it might be an astonishing coincidence or a sock, so I have requested a sock investigation prior to engaging in the kind of lengthy debates I used to have with Hauskalainen. The investigation is available here. If the similarity turns out to be coincidental, no further action is required. You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HAUSKALAINEN. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TVC 15 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 July 2011‎

115.188.221.123 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) - 220 of ^Borg 07:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)