Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel

IP numbers used:

• 24.45.99.191 (optonline.net — broadband provider)
• 65.125.10.66 (tcius.com — marketing company)
• 66.2.156.* (10, 27, 36, 38, 48, 69, 100, 123) (algx.net NY dialups)
• 216.99.245.* (139, 153, 154, 170, 171, 184, 188) (algx.net NY dialups)

---

Regarding Paul's fondness for reversion wars: check Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls for advice on dealing with anon users who grossly violate the 3 reversions in 24 hours policy, with abusive talk - David Gerard 08:06, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

I, Infrogmation, have been having a conflict/annoyance with an unlogged in user going by the name "Paul Vogel", User_talk:24.45.99.191 (contributions ), apparently the same person as User talk:65.125.10.66 (contributions ) or at least sharing an agenda. The Turner Diaries article has repeatedly been edited to try to look like something other than the neo-Nazi fantasy of global genocide which it is; problems with other "white power" related articles. May be related to earlier disputes over Cosmotheism. -- Infrogmation 05:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are always at least two sides to any dispute, and I always do try to always maintain a Wiki NPOV in any such articles of interest to me. I have never denied that the "Turner Diaries" wasn't just a "Neo-Nazi fantasy of non-white genocide", whatsoever, which it certainly is, but, only over some few particulars that did not reflect any Wiki NPOV.

Paul Vogel a.k.a Needle, as he sometimes calls himself, is a persistent and malicious pest who is here only to promote his odious neo-Nazi ideology while ignoring all the basic standards of Wikipedia, insisting that he and he alone has the only objective view of his pet topics, and attacking anyone who disagrees with him as a "Jewish Marxist PC bigot" or worse (see talk:Cosmotheism, wherein he implies that anyone who disagrees with him is suffering from mental illness). Naturyl, who apparently knows Vogel quite well, made several very accurate predictions about him (on talk:Pantheism, if you can sort out the incoherent mess Mr. Needle made of the page), and all of them have come to pass, except the one about Needle being permanently banned from Wikipedia, as he has been from every other website in which he has participated. Since months of discussion have not succeeded in teaching him the basic norms of Wikipedia -- NPOV, Wikiquette, or even basic layout and formatting -- he should be blocked on sight whenever he pokes his head out from the rock under which he lives. --No-One Jones 12:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Paul Vogel's latest manifestation is as 65.125.10.66 - David Gerard 16:58, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Stop mis-redirecting the NPOV article, below:

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs."

See also separatism

Again, this is only your own POV and false "opinion", Mirv, and from one of my oldest enemies on the internet, "Naturyl", so that false "opinion" of yours is hardly very "objective" and "non-slanderous" or nor is it "neutral" and it is only a deliberate "personal attack" upon both me and my beliefs, is it not?

I find it amusing to say the least, that like "Naturyl", that you are so quick to ban and to censor anyone that does not share your own POV?

What else isn't new?

As evidence, glance over the histories of the articles he's vandalised:

• Cosmotheism and associated talk page
• Pantheism and associated talk page
• Monism
• William Pierce
• White supremacy
• National Alliance
• Holocaust
• Holocaust denial
• (and some others, all related to the above).

--No-One Jones 12:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have not "vandalized" any of those pages by my insisting upon only a Wiki NPOV, whatsoever. You always falsely calling my edits, "vandalism", is just another subjective POV "personal attack" and with no real rational basis, whatsoever. Mirv is a just POV bigoted censor and lying hypocrite, just like "Naturyl", and no more and no less.

While the claims above are largely accurate (if biased, and seasoned with a good deal of flaming) I have found Paul to be able to make a decent edit on occasion, and must say he has gotten much better over time. I'm a bit shocked to see Mirv taking such a strong stand against him now, after all he put up with in the past forcing Paul to accept NPOV on "his" article cosmotheism. I havn't found him to actually vandalize anything in a very long time. He clearly spends more time studying some of these subjects than anyone else around here, and supplies a good deal of POV info and links, along w a much needed alternate perspective. I personally have found the sorts of P.C. biases Paul rails against on the wiki from time to time (altho not so much from the people he acccuses of it, mirv seems pretty darn fair and balanced, considering what he's put up with) and I frankly would like to reform Paul. I think he's on his way, I've seen consistant progress from him. And as far as I know, there is no specific policy on the wiki outlawing anyone based apon their politics (if such a policy were written, it had better not outlaw communists, or we'll lose 3/4's of the staff ;) Sam Spade 12:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, is about as "fair and balanced" in his leftist dogmatism and bigoted censorship as Bill O-reilly is with his own "neo-conservative" Fox news program! LOL! :D

Sam Spade is quite right about the staff being 3/4 leftist PC Marxists!

That is why the Wiki NPOV is in such danger of being pushed aside and only Marxist-PC Propaganda is being allowed within many articles in the Wiki encyclopedia.

I do not propose outlawing him based on his vile politics. If a neo-Nazi were to edit Wikipedia, but was willing follow NPOV, was polite, understood Wiki markup, and could write English that would pass an eighth-grade composition class, I would be willing to work with him. Since Vogel does not fit this description (except for the "neo-Nazi" part, of course), I made my complaint above.

On the contrary, you actually are proposing to outlaw and ban and censor me, because you consider my politics, "vile", and no more and no less. Get real!!!

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs."

See also separatism

If you have not seen him vandalise anything in a long time, either you have not been watching or you have a different definition of "a very long time": he vandalised my user and talk pages not two weeks ago ([1] [2] [3]), he vandalised white supremacy a few days after that ([4]), and then he vandalised Holocaust denial ([5]).

Mirv, has a very unique "definition" of "vandalism", which only just means anything that Mirv just doesn't like to see within any articles or on any talkpages. Your bigoted reverts had caused some frustration on my part, and I may have been only trying to get your attention, when I blanked out some of your pages. I do sometimes get sick of your bigoted POV reverts and edits, Mirv, and I do apologize for any actual "vandalism" that I may have actually done in the past.

I have tried patient discussion, and it did not work; Vogel responded by calling me (and numerous others) a "Jewish Marxist PC bigot" and a tool of Zionist (read: Jewish) world-domination conspiracy; (also accusing me of suffering from mental illness -- see above). Since he has not shown the slightest willingness or desire to abide by Wikipedia norms, and this is a pattern of behavior which he has demonstrated in the past (everything Naturyl said is true, and then some), I think he should be banned.

You have not done any such thing as try "patient discussion", whatsoever, only reverting and editing for your own POV and without any true "explaination", whatsoever. If the shoe fits, you do wear it, Mirv. You only want to ban me, just because you personally just don't like me or my beliefs, and that is the truth, and no more and no less.

Assumptions of good faith should not last when they have been violated from the start. (And as a nitpicking side note, I wrote nearly all of the cosmotheism article; Mr. Vogel, the self-proclaimed expert, could only vandalize it with bad English, unformatted source text dumps, deletion of inconvenient facts, and rants about "Marxist politically-correct propaganda". His contribution, despite his proclamation of expertise, is negligible.) --No-One Jones 13:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is just complete nonsense, and Mirv knows it. It figures that he would take the credit for work that he hadn't actually done!

I will quickly point out that yes, you did entirely and satisfactorilly rewrite cosmotheism, and against spectacular obstacles. I found it to be a rairly heroic display of NPOV (as well as general article quality) myself. On the other hand, I think you deminish Pauls role in providing an alternate view overmuch. On the Gripping hand, I was not aware of that other vandalism (are you sure its vandalism? I suppose I may have to look into it). I think you may want to take this to wikipedia:conflict resolution, since this page is designed for laughs (and incessent flamming) rather than being a legitimate part of wiki-process, IMO ;) Sam Spade 19:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is obvious that Mirv has no intention of having any "good will" towards resolving any issues between us, and only want to ban and censor me. Mirv really doesn't want any alternative or NPOV's within Wiki, and his past POV behavior and editing shows plenty of evidence of that fact.

Has also been getting into revert war at Homophobic hate speech. Could some other responsible folks around here take a look at this user? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 18:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A Wiki NPOV is justified with any such Marxist-PC POV topic.

I think this user's behaviour with frequent POV reverts has reached the stage where a block is warrented. As I have been one of the people involved in editing and counter-editing articles he's been active on, I recuse myself as an admin from doing the block myself. -- Infrogmation 21:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those that advocate such bans and blocks are usually Marxist-PC dogmatic bigots that do not wish to see any POV whether NPOV or not, other than their own. If one was to see what each of these editors has done in the past, that fact would become clear to any objective person.

I think this user needs to be blocked. Several have been trying to keep his rants to the talk pages but have been unsuccessful. In addition, his edits on other pages only amount to anti-jewish vandalism. - Texture 21:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That last is not remotely accurate. Sam Spade 21:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In reference to your objection to my claim on anti-jewish vandalism, please refer to his edit history of dozens (a day) attempted changes to several articles to add non-article content (discussions, rants, opinions) without agreeing to discussion and concensus in the Talk pages. (Many reversions request discussion on the talk page and are ignored.) I term vandalism as repeated attempts to deface an article. I suggest you read the attempted changes to get a feel for my interpretation of anti-jewish. - Texture 21:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish vandalism? That is a completely silly and false accusation.

Does my always striving to maintain a Wiki NPOV within articles "anti-jewish vandalism"? People like Mirv, and his ilk, or cabal, do seem to think so, and some "pigs opinions are just more equal than others", ie. Animal Farm.

Sam, are you replying to me or Vogel? All my paragraphs have my signature. The one before yours is not mine. - Texture 21:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IF the shoe fits?

This user appears to be back as 24.45.99.191. He has stated [6] that "WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article." He has no intention of working with others. What are the rules regarding a vandalising anon IP? - David Gerard 15:26, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

On the contary, I AM ALWAYS willing to work with anyone that is trying to maintain a Wiki NPOV within all articles. It is you that is being the F-head that is "unwilling" to talk or to work with any "others" that you just happen disagree with, like me.

Also now seen as 216.99.245.171 - David Gerard 16:10, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

There will be many others, as is necessary, to maintain the Wiki NPOV.

Now he's actually left me a message on my talk page to let me know there's an article -- separatism -- for me to revert again. Can some new people deal with this guy?

-- BCorr ¤ Брайен  02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why are or would you revert a NPOV article for one that isn't? Oh yeah, because you are a F-head that actually doesn't believe in the Wiki NPOV? Obviously!!!

---

Back as User:216.99.245.184 -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:12, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

back as 66.2.156.38 Perl 21:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

wikiquette

You all need to understand that wikiquette is not one way. Everytime you mistreat Paul, you justify an error on his part. It is only when you are kind, polite and welcoming, and remain unsuccessful in cultivating the "problem user" that you have any legitimate complaint, IMO. I have always gone out of my way to be polite to Paul, and have found a great deal of success, and a minimizing of negative edits. I suggest you take the plank from your own eye, before removing the mote from Pauls. Sam Spade 21:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

With respect, Jack, I have tried to be reasonable and polite and welcoming, and did not find it successful. I appreciate the fact that you've been able to, and hopefully you can continue to resson with him. It seems that my role in this will simply remain that of trying to enforce NPOV through my edits and endure his calling me a PC Marxist. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:43, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

So long as you strive to be as inclusive and non-partisan as possible, rather than defining "NPOV" as your POV (as I'm sure Paul assumes) then I think thats great. I don't want you to take me the wrong way, I have seen evidence of vandalism from Paul (blanking of pages) and complained about it myself. On the other hand, I have seen Paul make a good edit, and then it be reverted with the edit note stating it was "vandalism" (you were not involved in the incident I am refering to, BTW). This sort of thing gives him no small amount of justification. I must say, IMO there is no shortage of "PC marxists" here or in so many other places of learning, and from the POV I have seen in some places (particularly areas of politics or religion) on the wiki I can understand why Paul would choose these particular accusations. Why he levels them at you, or other specific individuals I can't say, not knowing enough of the particulars. Sam Spade 23:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam,

Here are some of the "particulars", some of which Bcorr "erased" to cover his own tracks and lying hypocrisy!:

? Moroccan Cuisine

Wouldn't it be easier to make the real edit in the first place? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote was accurate. What I replaced was somewhere on the scale from culturally niave to racist. I was not insulting. I did not say "filthy, lecherous Westerners". You reverted. You could have done the edit you suggest I do. You have corrected me but you have not corrected Wikipedia. If you are concerned about Wikipedia then you should remove the pre-exisiting inaccurate insult. Otherwise please explain the motivation for your action.

I don't monitor others' Talk pages. Reply to mine, please.

Paul Beardsell 02:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My point is simple. If there's a problem, correct it. Adding facetious text in in attempt to get someone else to fix the problem you found is not generally productive. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To make my point more plain: Imagine if on the American Cuisine page there was the equally misleading comment Kentucky Fried Chicken is usually eaten at brothels. Paul Beardsell 03:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and that was replaced by KFC is sometimes fed to North African tourists at so-called restaurants.

Then I would change it without adding something about overfed Americans eating ersatz Southern cuisine at a multinational fast-food chain... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In reply: You also had the opportunity but did not take it. The reversion was unnecessary policing. With the same effort you could have made the constructive change you want me to make. You have blindly crossed the street to correct a jay walker. Paul Beardsell 03:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whatever -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:17, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To make your point about how I could act more constructively you reverted a Wikipedia article to an inaccurate version. That's "whatever". Paul Beardsell 03:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the record, my change was not of the above character, but was unemotive and factual. What BCorr is objecting to (I think) is the phrasing of the comment I made about my change. The actual edit is itself difficult to object to as it is both unemotionally phrased and accurate. It is not "facetious", as alleged. View the moroccan cuisine version log and diffs. Paul Beardsell 03:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have copied the above text to the Moroccan Cuisine talk page. Paul Beardsell 03:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

? Paul Vogel rants again

"A supremacist [snip] at all costs." STOP MIS-REDIRECTING THIS NPOV ARTICLE TO A MARXIST-PC POV. THANKS! User:24.45.99.191

We will continue to revert your edits to remove your POV about what you claim are differences between white supremacists and white separatists. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) It is NOT my claim, it is the actual NPOV distinction between them, and whether your own POV actually thinks there is one or NOT!

---

"A supremacist [snip] at all costs."

STOP MIS-REDIRECTING THIS NPOV ARTICLE TO A MARXIST-PC POV. THANKS! User:24.45.99.191

We will continue to revert your edits to remove your POV about what you claim are differences between white supremacists and white separatists. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is NOT my claim, it is the actual NPOV distinction between them, and whether your own POV actually thinks there is one or NOT!

---

"A supremacist [snip] to avoid at all costs."

(text added by Paul Vogel, abridged by BCorr)

? Paul Vogel reprise

Thanks! Glad to see a sysop hard at work! Perl 02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We aim to please! I'll just redelete it and remove it from Vfd. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Hard at work" only preventing any truely NPOV articles from actually ever seeing the light of day! What a cabal of Marxist-pc POV bigots and censors!

Maybe I'm just a Wikisupremacist...or is that Wikiseparatist? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, neither, just a wiki F-head! That's only being objective and accurate and with a typically here, "Wiki NPOV!" LOL! :D (added by Paul Vogel)

That there are two words might suggest there is a difference in the meaning between them. What does the DICTIONARY say. Ah! [That I can see a difference does not make me a supporter of either concept.] Paul Beardsell 02:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[and it is that I comment on this page that makes me point that out.] Paul Beardsell 03:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He can format it but he can't reply to it. Paul Beardsell 04:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is my reply, oh snippy and demanding one: White separatist-- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm happier now. Nice article. (pat). Snippy is a bit rich from you. (slap). Paul Beardsell 04:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the heat in this discussion could have been defused by an admission early on that a difference between separatism and supremacism is acknowledged but that a NPOV form of words was being sought. Now that difference is acknowledged. That is really all the non-supremacist separatists (whether you believe their position is tenable or not) wanted. It seems to me that some of the unseemly language, however regrettable, was provoked. Paul Beardsell 04:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for honestly taking my case, Sam aka Jack!

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

PS--Treat someone with such "dis-respect", as BCorr has done with me and with others, ie. "whatever", when they had been objectively "proven wrong" or were shown to be "unreasonable", and then you will be only treated the same in turn.

Note: Much of the above is from my current talk page. Each place above where it says [snip] -- which I assume is what Paul is referring to that I erased -- is the same Strom quote that Paul kept inserting in articles. He put it on my talk page and I deleted the majority of the quote while leaving thebeginning and the end. I don't want to have any more copies of that Strom quote floating around than necessary. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to have any more copies of that Strom quote floating around than necessary. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:11, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with that Strom quote, BCorr, and why wouldn't you want it more well known? Maybe because it is true and undermines your own false POV beliefs?

Paul Vogel is right. BCorr and many of the other editors at Wikipedia have been reverting his edits, based only on their own leftist POV, verses Paul's factual and objective and NPOV edits. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your bigoted censorship of Paul Vogel! - 216.99.245.153

Seeing as 216.99.245.153 just tried refilling Cosmotheism with Vogelisms, may I suggest a quick reread of sock puppet. - David Gerard 12:53, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Since David Gerard here is such a lying hypocrite, I do suggest that all others here do a quick re-read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot and political correctness.

That kind of direct attack does not serve your arguments here. - Texture 19:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree! David Gerards' "direct attack" of sock puppet only provoked a similar response in kind!

As I said on Talk:National Alliance:

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:

1. There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
2. You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, obvious sock puppetry, etc.

By the way, why don't you ever sign your posts to talk pages? - David Gerard 19:55, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

We all know, David, by your own "actions" and "censorship" and "biased bannings" and "lying hypocrisy" that you are indeed posting with such a POV verses a Wiki NPOV in mind during your posts and editing!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575

What else isn't new?

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:

1. There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
2. You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

Or, #3, all of the above, as there has not been any "fair" disagreements about what I have written, as what I had written was only based upon the actual NPOV facts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575

The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

I AM well aware of what NPOV SAYS and MEANS, and that is WHY I am so DISGUSTED with some of the biased POV EDITORS here, that do SAY one thing BUT only DO quite ANOTHER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2682575

Their ACTIONS DO SPEAK much LOUDER than their WORDS!

Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, etc - David Gerard 16:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do consider that not being such a "lying hypocrite" would actually give you some "personal integrity", and that would likely create the desire in people with actual personal integrity to "play better" with you, David Gerard. :D

Allegations

The allegations placed on the request for comments page are accurate, as is Pauls claim of being censored. This is a perfect example of the "official" wiki POV. Being a communist or an anarchist is aok, but a nazi or a racist is unnaceptable. Thats BS. Having a diversity of editors is one of the best ways to ensure NPOV. The important thing is that we utilize citations, verifiability, and proper wording "some people believe X, for ABC reasons, see [reference] for more information" etc... Placing only one POV in an article, and passing it off and NPOV truth is again BS. In conclusion, I have seen Paul make numerous quality edits, as well as numerous crappy edits and even a few acts of vandalism. But the truth is, he is getting steadilly better over time, you all just didn't know him way back when he started ;) I see a potential editor in Paul, and definitely a source of non-"offical wiki POV" to counterbalance things with. Additionally, he is likely the most knowledgable (from what I have seen) out of all of us when it comes to the pages he chooses to edit. He isn't messing about on communism, I can tell you that ;) Lets try hard to lead by example, so that anybody, regardless of how "wrong" their POV is, can still edit here. Sam Spade 21:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Examples of when I am "right"! :D

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem

And here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.45.99.191

Block

Given Vogel's continued trolling I think it's necessary to block his IP addresses permanently AndyL 02:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)