Talk:Mount Shasta/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NOTE

The three sections below have been archived from Talk:Mount_Shasta (out of chronological order). --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed References

Was the removal of references by 67.117.25.162 justified or not? The edit summary indicates that the edit was to remove vandalism, but the references have been in the article for some time near as I can tell and don't look a lot like vandalism. --Burntnickel 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not justified, and neither was the false and deceptive edit summary. Those refs are the best current books about the mountain, and obviously belong in the article. See Special:Contributions/67.117.25.162, they are just a vandal or POV-pusher (possibly someone who dislikes the authors of those books?) who did the same thing at Mount Shasta, California. Please quickly revert any further attempts to delete refs. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am getting tired of reverting this page everytime an unregistered user (likely the same person) deletes referenes, claiming they are spam, and not providing any justification for the deletions. Is is worth considering having the page lock to editing by IP addresses and only allowing for registered users to edit? This would add soe accountability to the deletions. Either that or I am going to continue reverting unless there is some justification for kepping the references out provided. --Burntnickel 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected

The article has been semi-protected as requested (twice!) on WP:RPP. An anon editor is persistently removing the following two references without stating their rationale;

  • Zanger, MIchael (1992). Mt. Shasta: History, Legend, Lore. Celestial Arts. ISBN 0-89087-674-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Selters, Andy (2006). The Mt. Shasta Book (3rd ed.). Wilderness Press. ISBN 0-89997-404-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I'd kinda like to see some explanation from editors here (not just the anon editor) as to why these links are (in)significant and what exactly the issue is here - Alison☺ 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The first book is a loosely derivative work which is not used in the article. The editors are completely ignoring legitimate primary research sources ( i.e. U.S. Forest Service, U.S.G.S., California Dept. of Geology, etc) and instead substituting marginal secondary sources in their place. The second book is a sufficient commercial climbing guide, but what about the other dozen or so climbing guides about Mount Shasta and the area? Why are these two books (sharing one author) so important to this article? I do not believe they are important at all and suggest that they are being inserted for commercial promotion. I have checked other mountain related articles and have found these kind of insertions to be unacceptable. The two editors above reverted my edits without discussion. They also inserted the two books without discussion. Thank you for considering my opinion. --67.121.224.239 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finally posting your resons for the deletions. For the record, I was not involved in adding those references and only revered your edits since you would not provide any justification for the deletions. I have nothing against the deletions if that is justified, but without any explanation it seemed kind of fishy.
As for the validity of the sources I can't speak to that as I don't posess either of them. --Burntnickel 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. Please note that Alison requests your reasons for why these books are so important. I haven't seen any response in over a week. Yet, Seattle Skier keeps reverting every edit I or anyone else makes on these pages. What gives? Are these pages closed to editing? --67.121.224.239 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe having this discussion sooner would have avoided much of the controversy. It also didn't help that 68.127.50.113 edited the talk page to retroactively alter people's comments over that same time period. --Burntnickel 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for finally deciding to have a reasonable discussion. The pages are not closed to editing, but they are (and will be) closed to the type of conduct you have engaged in. The Wikipedia community frowns upon your actions: repeatedly deleting references with no proper explanation, and also leaving at least 4 different types of false edit summaries. Such conduct is unacceptable. If your viewpoint were legitimate, there would be no need for you to lie and deceive to push it, especially while hopping between at least 5 different IP addresses. But if you wish to have a civil discussion and refrain from such conduct in the future, then I am more than willing.

So, to discuss your points above:

  1. You "suggest that they are being inserted for commercial promotion".
    This is patently false, because neither I nor any of the other editors who have reverted your deletions have any connection to those books' authors or publishers. Period. Why would you make such a baseless accusation?
  2. "The editors are completely ignoring legitimate primary research sources ... and instead substituting marginal secondary sources in their place."
    I think you need to please read the official policy at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution, which states Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. Secondary sources are preferred to primary ones, so your argument is wrong. Also, there is no need for you to denigrate these books as "marginal secondary sources", which they are certainly not.
  3. "The first book is a loosely derivative work which is not used in the article."
    That book is the only commercially published book which covers the history of the mountain, the town, and the surrounding area. It is a completely legitimate reference source. As the article is expanded and moves towards a finished status (see Wikipedia:Featured articles for what such a thing looks like), numerous points throughout it will have footnotes page-referenced to this book.
  4. "The second book is a sufficient commercial climbing guide, but what about the other dozen or so climbing guides about Mount Shasta and the area? "
    There are NOT any dozen climbing guides about Mount Shasta, please don't make things up. There are more like 2 than 12, for example, just go to Amazon.com and search for "mt shasta climbing". The Mt. Shasta Book is by far the most comprehensive of those, and the only one that goes beyond being a climbing guide and is a useful general reference. Which is why it is a very successful book and now in its 3rd edition over a 17 year period (yes, I own all 3 editions). Numerous items will also have footnotes page-referenced to this book.
  5. "I have checked other mountain related articles and have found these kind of insertions to be unacceptable."
    Baloney. Just a completely untrue claim. Only link spam in the "external links" is unacceptable and deleted when discovered, while legitimate books added in the "references" section are always acceptable if portions of the article can be sourced to them. Which is clearly the case here.
  6. "Seattle Skier keeps reverting every edit I or anyone else makes on these pages."
    Again, a patently false and untrue statement. I do not revert every edit anyone else makes. Regarding your edits today (see the history), I initially reverted only your reference deletion. Five minutes later, having carefully evaluated your other 2 edits (one of which was a sentence deletion and the other an attempt to add constructive content), I decided to revert them both too. This was mainly because the numerous spelling and capitalization errors in your addition made it not worth trying to salvage, and it was an unsourced addition anyway, sitting directly in front of a "[citation needed]" template.

I hope that I have fully addressed all of your points. If you choose to continue your prior course of conduct, you will find that it will simply be a waste of your time, since your deletions will always be reverted.

If you would instead like to contribute in a constructive manner to Wikipedia, we would welcome it. I would suggest creating an account instead of randomly hopping between numerous IP addresses, please see Wikipedia:Why create an account? for the benefits of doing so. Chief among them is that "logging in lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits. It is also easier to communicate and collaborate with an editor if we know who you are (at least, who you are on Wikipedia). It is also easier for veteran users to assume good faith from new users who take the effort to create an account (and you may well become a veteran user yourself some day!). You may well be afforded a great deal less leeway if you do not go to the trouble of making up a username."

Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that you need to "rule the roost'. My comments are neither false nor illegitimate. You have partially based your opinion on whether an editor has a username or not. Interesting point for a person who just recently created one themselves. By what authority do you solely decide what is edited? Did you discuss the changes prior to deleting them? NO, you did not. Yes, you did type more words than I, but you did not prove your point. Your editing techniques are rude and without explanation.

Please don't threaten me, or other editors, in that you will just revert our edits. That is entirely outside of Wikipedia policy.

It is you sir, and only you. The only other editor to revert my edits has already stated they have not read the books.

--64.169.154.197 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that by stepping into this one I'm probably just going to get turned on by everybody, but it sounds like you guys could do with a fresh eye in this debate.
Firstly, a few comments for anon:
  • Seattle Skier did discuss changed prior to doing them, once it became clear it was controversial. It might have helped if you had engaged with his comments earlier on in the process.
  • Your point of view isn't worth less merely because you edit from anonymous IPs, but since a lot of vandals do the same people are naturally going to be a bit wary. It also makes it harder to contact you to sort things out like this before they blow up into arguments. And because your IP changes it makes it harder for people to see if edits are by one person or several (including the retrospective page edit someone was complaining about). Thats all.
  • Seattle Skier didn't say he would revert all your edits, just those in the same vein as those under discussion. In my opinion he shouldn't have to, because there shouldn't BE any contentious edits until its been resolved here. So in theory, no problem.
  • He also isn't the only one to add the links back - several other editors have agreed with his judgement.
  • Lastly a question - have you read either of the books yourself?
And Comments for Seattle Skier:
  • 'IP hopping' sounds rather pejorative, it could just be that our anonymous editor is on dialup and therefore has a non-static IP outside his control.
  • I'm not sure what the 'false edit summaries' you mention were. The only ones I've seen all related to 'spam', which I know you contest. But if our anonymous editor believed in good faith they were spam, that's a disagreement not a false summary. Unless I've missed some edits. Although I appreciate various parties got a bit heated in some of the summaries.
The links:
  • The links inclusion has been supported by several editors, so it's unlikely they were all doing so with conflict of interest, even if Seattle Skier was.
  • Seattle Skier furthermore doesn't have the kind of contribution history typical of a link spammer - lots of constructive edits to a wide variety of volcano-related topics.
  • I don't have either of the books, so I'm somewhat hampered. But Seattle Skier seems to have given a fairly reasonable explanation of why they're relevant. So I think they should stay.
  • Given that several editors have now concurred, and we only have evidence of one who thinks they should be removed (albeit with multiple IPs), it seems sensible to keep them on the page while the discussion goes on here, and remove them at a later date if the opposite consensus is reached. So I've reverted the latest edit, and ask everybody to discuss it here instead.
Eve 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That is well spoken (written?) and seems to be a rational course of action. I am perfectly happy to leave the links alone as long as there is a meaningful discussion here to reach a concensus one way or the other. As I've said before I don't have the books in question so I don't think I can weigh-in in a meaningful manner as to their relevance. --Burntnickel 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eve, thanks for helping out in this discussion, you won't get turned on by everybody. But I think you meant to say "keep them ON the page", right?

To address the question of the term "IP-hopping": I do see why it might seem pejorative, but it is merely a statement of fact. It may not be his fault that the IP address changes, but the fact that it does (and changes in all the numbers, not the just the rightmost ones) makes it more difficult to pin down the edits to a single person. This is an issue which would be readily resolved if anon created an account in order to contribute more constructively and stand behind his statements with a single identifiable online identity.

As for the particular false and deceptive edit summaries he used, I had already made a list that I posted on Alison's talk page 2 weeks ago, so here it is:

  • rm vandalism
  • rm Self Promotion SPAM
  • rm :SPAM yes it is spam
  • rm SPAM (will continue to remove)
  • rm SPAM irrelevant references
  • rm irrelevant citation

The first of those is clearly intended to deceive other editors, and so my presumption of good faith on the part of anon ended after seeing that. However, of the 6 examples listed here, only the last could possibly be construed to be a "good faith" evaluation of the references on their merits. Any use of the word SPAM implies a strong assumption of bad faith on the part of anon, implying (as he has again done above) that I have some financial connection with book author Michael Zanger. It's so bizarre, what is anon thinking? That Zanger (who I assume lives in Shasta City) is in cahoots with someone living in Seattle, 540 miles away, to spam Wikipedia in order to increase Zanger's book sales? Does he think all of us are on Zanger's spam payroll? I'm sorry, but every one of the edit summaries which says SPAM is a deliberate falsification and attack on our credibility.

And anon, unfortunately your comments are very often false, and therefore illegitimate. For example, please name which 12+ Shasta climbing guides you are talking about. You can not do so. And accusing me of "reverting every edit I or anyone else makes on these pages" is also a deliberate falsification. You state "Interesting point for a person who just recently created one themselves." Huh? Four months and 7,000 edits is not recent in Wikipedia time (and I anonymously contributed minor constructive edits for years before that). My contributions already place me easily in the top 0.1% of all the 4,300,000+ registered accounts. Anon, your credibility is nil because you feel the need to continually distort and deceive, but your statements are easily refuted (as above) with facts and evidence.

Anon has repeatedly removed book references from these articles, so we should continue to watch all of them for any continuation of his prior (and ongoing) behavior:

As always, attempts at constructive improvements will not be reverted forthwith, but evaluated on their merits. And everything I have said about reverting your edits is neither a threat nor outside Wikipedia policy. Thanks for listening. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed mean 'keep the links ON the page', thanks for picking up my rather disastrous typo! Have corrected it above. As for the edit summaries - spam could be considered a form of vandalism, particularly by inexperienced editors. Although I agree the refs clearly aren't spam, my argument was that anon may have believed in good faith that they were. Making his edit summaries wrong, but not intentionally deceptive. Either way, it's fairly irrelevant to the actual question of whether to include the refs or not. Doesn't matter whether anon is a sinner or a saint, merely whether he's right or wrong. And several of us seem to disagree with his opinion. Eve 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to insert my two cents: I agree with what Seattle Skier has said, and I applaud Eve's calm and rational contributions. In particular, I echo her comment that one should always focus on the substance of an editor's contributions (including their edit summaries and talk page contributions), even when it is tempting to speculate about motivations. About the sources: I own The Mt. Shasta Book, and it's certainly a completely valid source. As pointed out above, the article could use some specific citations, so maybe I'll put some in while I'm thinking about it. A final question: is this page semi-protected or not? It was claimed to be, but it doesn't seem to be in fact. -- Spireguy 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected from April 21 to 28, 2007. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I believe Spireguy is on the right track by citing the disputed reference in the article. In light of this, I agree that the book reference should remain temporarily. References that are not cited and conspicuously placed, entirely out of order, at the top of the list will always appear suspect and prone to removal. I assume no one has an objection to moving the reference to the correct alphabetical location? 63.198.18.219 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to alphabetizing the references, but if you want to retain some credibility, I suggest you provide more descriptive and neutral edit summaries. You might also benefit from reading the talk page guidelines, based on your use of excessive bolding above.
I don't see anything absolutely inappropriate in citing general references with no specific inline citations; it's certainly better than not citing any relevant sources at all. Yes, the article could use more inline citations, but the lack of them is not in itself sufficient grounds for removing a reference. -- Avenue 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Avenue for the contribution, and I'll echo the objection to the personal attack in the edit summary by 63.198.18.219. -- Spireguy 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A message for anon

This message is for the anonymous IP editor involved in the above discussion, apparently based on a PacBell/SBC DSL connection from northern California.

Your long-term pattern of abuse (consisting of repeatedly deleting book references from 4 articles, and repeatedly leaving false, deceptive edit summaries) has now been documented on the subpage /Abuse. In light of that lengthy history, you are now receiving a final warning. Since your IP address continually changes, it is not possible to post a warning message on your talk page, so it is posted here where you will easily find it:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize or disrupt Wikipedia, by deleting references, leaving false edit summaries, or any other method, you will be blocked from editing. The IP address you use will receive a block of appropriate length (24 hrs) and your ISP will be contacted via their email address for abuse complaints: abuse@sbcglobal.net (for pacbell.net)

Blocking you and contacting your ISP is entirely in accordance with Wikipedia policy, please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Guide to abuse reports. It is unfortunate that your conduct has forced this course of action. You remain welcome to make constructive edits to any articles including the 4 in question here, but any further non-constructive edits will not be tolerated.

--Seattle Skier (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is truly unfortunate that you are not open to discussing differences of opinion. Even after a group discussion you tend to 'go overboard' in your reactions. I believe your ego may be bruised only because you are not the only authority on this subject. Please start acting like an adult and stop this 'chatroom style' warfare. Neither my edits or use of wikipedia violates any abuse policy. Please 'grow up'. 64.169.154.110 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Anon, Seattle Skier is not the 'only authority' on the subject, true. However several other 'authorities' on the subject have disagreed with your opinion re the references, and I think a reasonable consensus was reached here. However subsequent edit summaries of "correct Seattle Skier's mistakes" concerned a third editor enough that he/she felt the need to make blank edits to correct them. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the edits you have made, this particular summary was at least misleading, and in my opinion violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't think accusations of 'chatroom warfare' are going to help keep things civil and constructive, your current attitude merely seems to vindicate Seattle Skier's concerns regarding your behaviour. Can I also encourage you once more to register an account - it would be much easier to sort this out if you had a user talk page where we could discuss this, instead of doing it on the article page. Thanks. Eve 18:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Anon, any differences of opinion (if you wish to refer to them as such) have been discussed at length, although not until after you chose to edit-war relentlessly for several weeks with no discussion whatsoever. Frankly, when I decided to investigate on May 20 and find all of your contributions, I was shocked to discover just how extensive your pattern of abuse was: 30+ edits, almost all of them non-constructive, from 12 separate IPs, all traceable to a PacBell/SBC DSL connection in northern California. That is why I proceeded to document them at /Abuse. Despite your insistence to the contrary, you have violated numerous Wikipedia policies. Your repeated deletion of references constitutes vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism, which states "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary."). Twice, you have modified or deleted other user's comments on talk pages, which is also vandalism (again see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism, lower down). Your edit summaries and even your comments above violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please take the time to read and understand our policies before insisting that you have not violated them.
If your edits had come from a single IP address or a registered account, you would have been blocked several times by now for increasing amounts of time, and would likely be facing an indefinite block for any further violations. As for my own reaction to the situation: if my reactions above had 'gone overboard', I would have been told so by now in no uncertain terms, but that has not happened. As an admin now, everything I do and say on Wikipedia faces increased scrutiny, and I am not allowed to 'go overboard', or to act unilaterally except as permitted by policy. I have made my best effort to remain civil, to politely explain the situation to you, and to act entirely within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and I will continue to do so.
Anyway, on to more constructive things. Just to let others know my thoughts, I am planning to move the entire discussion above (starting with "Removed References") into an archive (Talk:Mount Shasta/Archive 1) so that this talk page can return to normal and resume discussing article content. Now that anon has read the final warning, I will archive within a day or two if there are no objections. I think we should resume working on articles instead of beating a dead horse here. Do people agree with archiving and considering the matter closed? --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Shasta/Archive_1&oldid=1137023055"