Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by ClueBot III

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion
  • An RfC on the capitalization of bird names.
  • An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
  • A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
  • An RfC regarding changing the username policy to allow role accounts.
  • A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages


Certified pages

24.0.133.234

Scholarlyarticles

General

Noticeboard archives

Repeated personal attacks and reverting of edits without addressing in Talk to gain consensus[edit]

Coretheapple has made repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses throughout Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, while making changes to Fort Lee lane closure scandal that are in contradiction to previous Talk discussions.

It was agreed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality & Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion that details of Zimmer allegations would be included in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities, and other organizations.

It was just addressed again in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether details of Zimmer allegations should be added. I reminded everyone that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article. Coretheapple made no further comments about a statement for inclusion in the Fort Lee article that reached consensus between JackGavin and myself with no reference to Zimmer and a link to the "Governorship of Chris Christie" section.

Instead, Coretheapple went into the Fort Lee article and started adding detail about Zimmer allegations.

I opened up Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid to address content based on Coretheapple's addition of details about Zimmer allegations.

Coretheapple responded with the same points they made in a variety of Talk discussions that did not accept those arguments. I addressed each and every point that Coretheapple made about adding more content about Zimmer allegations and explained why they were not needed and that it contradicted consensus reached in past Talk discussions. Coretheapple began to make personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses.

Coretheapple's latest personal attacks and denigrating comments against me in their Talk discussions included their entries of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments.

I repeatedly requested Coretheapple in that Talk discussion and my recent History edit comments, (i.e. [1] and [2] ) to address their arguments in Talk about content additions for details about Zimmer allegations. Instead, Coertheapple either ignored my Talk requests and History edit comments or made more personal attacks on the Talk discussion page, and then continued to add details about Zimmer allegations (see [3] and [4] ).

Instead of complying with my requests to address content, Coretheapple has continued with personal attacks on the Fort Lee Talk discussions and History edit comments in the Fort Lee article.

As clearly shown in Additional details for Zimmer allegations, Coretheapple is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus, as they did not reach any consensus and ignored and contradicted consensus reached in past discussions in complaints, Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, and content issues about Zimmer allegations that I previously cited above.

I have tried to work with Coretheapple in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus based on Coretheapple's bold additions for additional Zimmer details.

Based on evidence of Coretheapple's unacceptable and disruptive edits in contradiction to consensus reached at past Talk discussions and their objectionable personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses or edits, I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Just for the record, I have found Wondering55 to be one of the most difficult people when it comes to a) working with others and b) taking advice. Astronomically difficult. As an admin, I've just had shake my head and say "WTF" quietly to myself many times DP 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, rather than address the facts that I present for this particular case, DP has mis-characterized my past efforts and clearly good faith efforts for this particular case, and continues to make negative assumptions about me in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When a Wikipedia administrator has to refer to another person's good faith efforts, as demonstrated in this specific case, as "WTF", rather than address the specific facts and actions by another editor with clear evidence of personal attacks against me and my comments that appears to violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines that I presented, there is something seriously wrong. Wondering55 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ohhh, you're right ... something is seriously wrong. Remember, when you file at ANI, your own behaviour will come under the microscope as well DP 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I welcome review of my behavior for this particular instance and these particular facts. To try and confuse the issues with a debate on other past issues would be disingenuous and very time consuming. So far, I have not seen any constructive, neutral points of view about the facts of this particular situation. Wondering55 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on my Talk comment of "Let's be reasonable" and my subsequent editing to give Corethapple practically all of their requested revisions with only one brief mention of Zimmer's name, Coretheapple goes in and adds more details about the allegations and puts back Zimmer comments about the investigation into her allegations, none of which were agreed to in the Talk.
Coretheapple's changes below were removed since they were not made in accordance with WP:BRD, as clearly shown in the Talk discussion. Coretheapple was requested to go back to Talk to address these issues based on [5].
[6]; [7]; [8]
Coretheapple ignored this request and put back details below into the article.
[9]; [10]
When those changes were reverted by me with another request to go Talk, Coretheapple simply reverted the changes and claimed that their revert details "are explained on the talk page" without indicating that the explanations, which were contrary to all past Talk discussions in several Talk topics, were not accepted on the Talk page.
[11]
In essence, Coretheapple reverted previously agreed to modifications three times within a day's time without addressing or gaining any consensus, as requested in my History edit comments and Talk. This does not even include Coretheapple's other previous edits regarding the addition of details about Zimmer allegations that were not in accordance with past Talk discussions with other editors and Additional details for Zimmer allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Just from an uninvolved editor's perspective, not many people will want read through all this text and weigh the merits of your complaint. Can you boil it down to two paragraphs and 3 diffs that best illustrate the point you are making? I'm only saying this because I assume you want editors to respond to your posting here and you're demanding a lot of attention from them. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In Additional details about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, Coretheapple's repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses culminated in their final inaccurate and denigrating insults of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of Talk edit comments, as shown below.

[12]](April 12 13:34 - 14:09)

Those comments were made in response to my previous Talk discussion where I indicated "Let's be reasonable" on April 9 that was followed by my April 12 response below, which included "In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer."

[13] April 12 4:01)

Other examples:

[14] (My April 9 15:36 response to previous personal attack about my comments as "insane" and "blah/blah reply")

[15] (My April 9 16:54 response to previous personal attack of my comments as "blah/blah fix")

I had repeatedly stated in that Talk that further details, which were removed, about Zimmer belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per consensus in past Talk discussions:

Coretheapple continued to make changes to the article in contradiction to those Talk discussions.

Coretheapple's changes for adding more Zimmer details were reverted in accordance with Bold Revert and Discuss with a request to address their proposal in Talk to see if they could gain any consensus for adding details. Instead, Coretheapple simply reverted these changes on three separate occasions within a days time between April 11 & 12 (if needed, see my previous response at 20:53, 12 April 2014 for diff examples) and put back all of the Zimmer details without any further Talk discussion.

I responded in Talk that Coretheapple's actions were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus and that Coretheapple's final retort contained so many personal attacks against me and my comments. They violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The changes made by Coretheapple for adding details about Zimmer allegations in contradiction to past Talk discussion and no consensus for including them based on the latest Talk should be revised.

I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues rather than any personal attacks or denigrating comments like Coretheapple has made. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Asked to "boil it down to 2 paragraphs and 3 diff's" and we get a wall-o-text. Helpful indeed, and indicative of behaviour so far DP 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
More denigrating comments and personal attacks by DP rather than focusing on the facts. DP continues to question my good faith efforts and behavior in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. For some reason, DP has a very biased view of me. That is not right, particular by a Wikipedia administrator.
It should be clearly seen that my updated presentation makes it much easier to focus on the facts. DP's unnecessary claims of wall-o-text is clearly contradicted by that guideline that addresses "overly long unformatted statements". My clearly outlined and focused presentation with very short paragraphs is in accordance with the guideline's recommendation to "distill one's thoughts into bite size pieces."
As per the very constructive request, the first 2 paragraphs clearly highlighted the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that clearly support my position. That is all the administrators need to focus on regarding my request to block Coretheapple based on their personal attacks.
As requested, I provided the diff's for 3 long past Talk discussions, so that administrators could quickly see past consensus that contradicted Coretheapple's proposal to add details about Zimmer's allegations into Fort Lee lane closure scandal rather than include those details in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple was previously requested to comply with this consensus in one of these referenced Talk discussions, without any objections by Coretheapple.
I also referenced 3 Fort Lee article diffs to show how Coretheapple repeatedly added details about Zimmer allegations without discussing or gaining consensus in Talk in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus.
The facts are clear and my updated presentation focuses on the key information with very clear diffs that should make it much easier for a constructive and fair review by Wikipedia administrators.
While not as blatant, Coretheapple is continuing to make condescending remarks about my behavior and editing, rather than neutral constructive comments. Wondering55 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The above Mt. Everest of text concerns approx. 15 words in the article, and my efforts to lure this editor into a discussion of the merits have been met by the kind of tactics that we see here. Wondering55 is especially emotive on this because he was blocked for edit warring based on a complaint I brought a few days ago, during the course of which his access to his own talk page was blocked. I am almost literally out the door for a few days and cannot respond further, but I am sure that Wondering55 will have plenty more to say on the "consensus" that did not exist and the terrible "personal attacks" to which I have subjected him, most recently concerning some comments concerning overuse of the word "indicate" in the article which didn't involve him at all and were not directed to him or any editor. I am not the first editor who has had this kind of encounter with Wondering55, and I am sure that I won't be the last. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again, rather than focus on the facts of this particular situation, Coretheapple continues with their inaccurate denigrating comments of "Mt. Everest of text", my supposed "tactics", which incorrectly implies bad faith on my part, and "especially emotive", and brings up totally unrelated incidents to this particular situation, which stands on its own merits. The diffs for the 3 past Talk discussions that I provided clearly show the "consensus" of editors that Coretheapple has repeatedly ignored. Coretheapple's personal attacks are very clear in the first diff that I provided in my updated presentation (06:38, 13 April 2014). I am not even sure why Coretheapple even raised the issue of the overuse of the word "indicated" in the article since I never thought or indicated anywhere in this Talk or the Fort Lee article Talk that Coretheapple's comments were personally directed at me. I have not brought up any other past questionable behavior by Coretheapple since I wanted to focus on the clear facts of this situation where Coretheapple has made personal attacks and inaccurate/inappropriate denigrating comments against me and my editing.
There have been close to 200 editors in the Fort Lee article. Coretheapple has been the only editor to continually ask for additional details about Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief for Hoboken that is separate from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. All other editors agreed that those details, with a link to that other article, belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation, along with many other scandals that have been publicized as people have looked into other aspects of the Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Coretheapple had added around 55 words (fifty-five) about Zimmer and her allegations in the article in their past edits in contradiction to consensus and Talk discussions. Coretheapple's final edit has added 41 words to the article. All other editors were satisfied with no additional words about Zimmer and her allegations beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation. Wondering55 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking that the WMF server and bandwidth bill doesn't need this user? Guy (Help!) 7:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    • No, Guy, I'm another. Of course the most precious commodity the user is squandering isn't server space but the attention and energy of other volunteers. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
My updated request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 has 440 words, not including links to the diffs or Talk pages. It is in line with requests below that were answered without discussions about their length.
Disruption and malicious editing – 502 words
Brews_ohare, Snowded and others – 490 words
Disruption and malicious editing – 401 words
User:Ohconfucius – 781 words
First 2 paragraphs, which only have 160 words, highlighted personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that support my position. That is not time consuming in order to focus on my request to block Coretheapple based on their attacks and comments.
Remainder of request addresses Coretheapple's violations of BRD, Edit warring, and Consensus that led to these attacks and denigrating comments, instead of focusing on content, as I requested. I suggested that Coretheapple's edits, which added between 41 to 55 words to the Fort Lee scandal article should be undone since there was no consensus and their revisions contradicted agreements and consensus in 3 past Talk discussions in which there were to be no words about these allegations, beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation.
I would appreciate the courtesy of a review based on the facts that I have presented in my request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 that is within the length of other requests that were addressed. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin, I took a look not only at the section of the Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal indicated, but at a random selection of other edits on the article page, & exchanges on the talk page. I could find no explicitly stated "consensus" there. My opinion, however, is that Wondering55 does respond to comments by others with impenetrable slabs of text. Stating an obvious fact is not a personal attack; truth is always a defense against libel. I also would like to point out Coretheapple's last response to Wondering55 included the passage: "If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time." I interpret these sentences to mean Coretheapple is about to stop editing the article entirely. Seeing how that user made only 3 edits after that, I think I'm right about that.

And even if Coretheapple was rude, then gave up editing the article? What more does Wondering55 want done? I'm thinking the best solution here instead might focus on Wondering55. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple has not given up on editing the article.
I want to know if Coretheapple can be blocked for personal attacks and denigrating comments (like those quoted and shown in the diffs below) that are simply opinions, and not facts, in the one cited Fort Lee discussion. I continually asked Coretheapple to focus on content without this derogatory language, and yet Coretheapple persisted. Coretheapple even edited one of their saved responses, which already had derogatory language, just to add more derogatory language. If Coretheapple cannot be blocked, will this type of language and behavior be allowed, or are there other alternatives to prevent or address this situation? Wikipedia and professional environments frown on denigrating opinions among colleagues.
  • "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" in their Talk History edit comments when responding to me.
  • [18]] (April 12 diff with multiple revisions by Corethepaple with the most significant derogatory comments)
  • [19] (My April 9 15:36 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)
  • [20] (My April 9 16:54 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)
This situation occurred while I addressed content and suggested that a significant portion of Coretheapple's revisions could be included. I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple. When Coretheapple could not gain consensus for their entire proposal, Coretheapple started with their derogatory comments and repeatedly added details (with up to 55 extra words in various revisions, and ending up with 41 extra words in final revision) about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken issues to the Fort Lee article rather than just refer readers to Hoboken relief funds investigation, in contradiction to past agreements among editors (as shown below) for the Fort Lee article.

Yikes! Mudslinging galore! Too many Wall-o-Text accusations and Attacks... Lets tone this down please. Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the links that he provides, I come away with the conclusion that A) Wondering55 does not understand how article forks work; B) He does not understand the meaning of consensus, C) He does not understand personal attacks, and D) He just doesn't get that "wall of text" is both accurate and apt in describing his tactics. I know Coretheapple from other articles, not this one, and have always found him to be civil, and he shows no evidence of being anything but in this instance. I agree with other editors that the issue here is Wondering55 and his aggressive, attacking, generally clueless and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I simply pointed out denigrating comments made by Coretheapple based on the facts. There are no personal attacks by me. Coretheapple's personal attacks in the referenced talk discussion and in their response above are covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks:
  • "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."
Consensus and agreements were clear in the cited Talk diffs above. Previous editors, except for Coretheapple who was told by more than one editor, knew that it was agreed that details about Zimmer allegations would be shown in Hoboken relief funds investigation.
Coretheapple was unable to get anyone to support their proposal to add details about Zimmer allegations into the Fort Lee article, so there was no consensus for their proposal. Yet, Corethapple went ahead and added these details in contradiction to Bold Revert and Discuss.
There is no evidence or facts in the cited Fort Lee discussion that I had the claimed wall-o-text based on Wikiepedia's wall-o-text.
There is no evidence or facts to support that there was any "agressive, attacking, or generally clueless WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior", which are clearly denigrating comments without any substance.
When I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple, it clearly contradicts those baseless charges.
Clearly, some people do not understand what it means to be civil, when shown comments about me and my responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply"
Whether Coretheapple was civil in any other Talk discussions, has absolutely no bearing on the presented facts for the cited Fort Lee talk discussion where they were not civil. Wondering55 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you are not happy with the responses you have received here, and have commenced a discussion on the same issues at the Teahouse. You were warned not to forum-shop, which you deny doing. You were also advised to "take to heart the excellent advice that a wide range of experienced editors have offered you in recent days," to which you responded in the negative. Would you like to continue the discussion here, or would you like to pursue it there, or is it your intent to discuss your grievances simultaneously in this forum and at the Teahouse? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Figureofnine, you are being very kind to Wondering55. A less kind person -- like me -- would at this point make the following points: (1) speaking as an Admin, I'm not going to penalize Coretheapple for anything he posted so far in this case; (2) speaking as a third party, I seriously doubt any other Admin is about to penalize Coretheapple; & (3) speaking as both, if anyone is to be penalized here, I expect it will most likely be Wondering55. I strongly advise Wondering55 to accept the fact that not only he/she will not be getting any satisfaction here, but that he/she has dug himself into a very deep hole & should stop digging -- if nothing else. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm struck by the absence of understanding. He just hasn't a clue. If you go to the archive of his talk page, where he appears to deposit old and new posts that don't make him look very good, he lectures an administrator who blocked him a week or so ago. [21] "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review." Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So far I have seen too many clues from too many editors that seem to be engaged in unsubstantiated opinions and very misleading and complete distortions of my actions. They have not focused on my original request based on the facts, which I have presented that contradict their claims, and the issues of whether repeated denigrating comments made by another editor violate Wikipedia guidelines for civility, etiquette, and no personal attacks. Rather than address those facts and the very guidelines that tell users not to engage in that type of behavior, all of this is being ignored and additional inaccurate claims and denigrating comments are being made that contradict and ignore the facts.
I do not have the time to waste to respond to these further inaccurate claims and denigrating comments.
I seriously doubt if any editor on this topic was faced with repeated comments about them and their responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" (none of which are accurate based on the facts), as Coretheapple responded to me, that they would say that is acceptable language and behavior and do nothing about it.
I have been very civil in my editing and Talk discussions where I address content issues, including any contradictions with the facts from reliable sources, and not personalities. If needed, I point out actions and responses by editors that do not seem to comport with acceptable behavior and general etiquette, all of which are further supported by various Wikipedia guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced Wikipedian who has used Template: Welcomeg -- & related templates -- take a look at the edits Wondering55 has made to them in the last few days? I may be prejudiced here, but I doubt that his/her edits have improved the text in that template. -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I use {{Welcomeg}} all the time - and their edits turned it into a utterly useless piece of garbage, so I have reverted to an older version...and added it to my watchlist  the panda  ₯’ 09:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
add...which means I have had to undo some of their other major cockups related to welcome templates. I'll WP:AGF that they were trying to help, but those types of changes to core templates need far more that being WP:BOLD - they have evolved over years of reasoning  the panda  ₯’ 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to revert {{Welcomeg}} a bit deeper ([22]). - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. I consider myself an experienced Wikipedian, & I wouldn't have dared to have made some of the changes the OP made without getting a second opinion first. ::sigh:: So what is the proper method to handle a problem of competence while acknowledging that the individual is acting in good faith? -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please note:
Daily.drink and Enforcer5151 are two new users (or are they?) whose userpages were redirected to their talk pages ([23] and [24]) by Wondering55, followed by requests on their talk pages ([25] and [26]) for comments about Wondering55's proposed and dismissed version of template {{welcomeg}}. Can someone have a look at this and comment whether this is appropriate? - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs.
All of these content issues about the updated version of the Welcomeg template could easily have been raised during the 6 weeks of updates that I addressed in a Talk discussion on that page where there was absolutely no consensus or additional feedback to not allow these updates to be incorporated. I was entitled to be "bold" in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and assume there were no objections or second opinions about my proposed updates.
All of this outrage could have easily been prevented if all of these new responders had simply addressed their concerns in that Talk discussion for a greeting template that they should be watching.
I certainly would not have made any past updates for the greeting template if these content issues had been previously raised, or would consider making any future updates without further discussion, feedback, and consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines. I am a responsible Wikipedia user that knows how Wikipedia works and treats other users and their content updates, no matter how outrageous, with respect and a civil discourse.
Others using words and phrases like "utterly useless piece of garbage", " major cockups", and "ugh" are not conducive to a civil discourse about content and appear to contradict the facts of the content, Talk discussions, and Wikipedia guidelines about civil discourse.
Recent editors continue to spend an awful lot of time focusing on my actions, which were made in good faith for legitimate improvements, as if they were a nefarious means at worst or botched good faith efforts at best, rather than focus on the content issues. They then try to link unrelated past behavior to the specific content issues that I address. If every user, who had made a past faux pas, was called up on their past mistakes every time they wanted to address a new content issue, that would have a very chilling effect on needed legitimate Talk discussions.
Please stop making inaccurate allegations about my competence since they are not warranted. All of this negativity is very, very concerning to me and should be concerning to responsible Wikipedia administrators.
Focus on NPOV content issues without derisive and foul language, rather than unwarranted comments about my personal actions and there will be a vast improvement to the discourse and needed actions for Wikipeida article improvements. Hope to see all of you on Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where this discussion rightfully belongs. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This Talk discussion should be closed out by an administrator since it is no longer focusing on the original request I made about responses I was receiving to content issues about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's showing that they community might just have to review all of your edits on this project. You seem to have a history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold when consensus is clearly against you, bizarre arguments, a wholly ineffective understanding of WP:CIVIL so that you twist it to try to be in your favour (which, by the way, has become a personal attack through making false statements). Our ability to assume good faith is now wholly stretched by a review of the mere surface of your edits. You've done a great job proving my very first statement in this thread to be true  the panda  ₯’ 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Re "It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs": I don't think this is a discussion about the template. This is a discussion about user conduct. I haven't read the remainder of your reply per obvious wp:TL;DR, and probably building on the misconception in that first statement anyway. - DVdm (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda continues to make completely false and inaccurate statements. The facts clearly show that I have no history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold by going against consensus, no bizarre arguments (there is that avoidable denigrating comment again), no twisting of facts in my favor, and no personal attacks through false statements. I was involved with a misunderstanding about content issues that I repeatedly tried to work out with editors and made a mistake in unnecessarily reverting them. I have a very good understanding of what it means to act or not act with civility, and not make any false statements or twist anything.
None of these accusations should ever have been raised since they are completely inaccurate. This is beginning to look like a twisted way and an inappropriate excuse to investigate me and further harass me rather than simply focus on content issues. The conduct of those making inaccurate and derisive statements certainly leaves a lot to be desired. I am not asking for an investigation of their behavior or comments by others about how they have behaved.
The facts can be twisted any way needed to make a completely inaccurate analysis. Rather than addressing the original request for this Talk discussion, editors are now using this Talk discussion as an excuse to simply pile on unnecessary and inaccurate derisive comments about me in a very intimidating manner.
I am satisfied that viewpoints from all needed parties to my original request about the Talk discussion in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal have been adequately expressed.
It is time to move on to other issues. All of the new issues about what I have done regarding Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template should be addressed in that Talk page, unless editors have ulterior motives.
Differences of opinions about content issues and the updates that I made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines can best be addressed on that page. Wondering55 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In regards to DVdm's previous comment, my previous response was not obvious wp:TL;DR since I was able to very slowly read my response, which is broken up into clear, concise, and well-organized short statements, in 75 seconds. DVdm would do well to heed the advice from that guideline: "it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing". All of my subsequent statements, which support my original first statement based on the facts, from my response were conveniently ignored and not addressed by DVdm. Editors are not following Wikipedia guidelines and are shopping for additional forums to vent their unsubstantiated anger against me.
I continue to offer my good faith efforts to work with them, even if we have differences of opinion on how to achieve results. So far, I have not seen any reciprocal offers. Let's move on. I have listened carefully to try and understand some underlying concerns contained in the editor's responses. I will do my best to try and work and with them if they give me a fair chance. Wondering55 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You would do well to read the box on top of wp:TL;DR. It is not a guideline. Not even close. It is a handy, concise, and humorous way to tell someone that they are making too much noise smile. - DVdm (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I second that, and if Wondering55 is thinking of expanding his reading list, I can also recommend Wikipedia:ANI Advice, particularly points #1 and #2.
Eventually, Wondering, people will get bored enough with watching you repeatedly post mountains of rambling, irrelevant text about how everyone else is the problem and you are not, to do something about it, and curb your disruption. Your style is not new, it's boring, old, and predictable, and the patience of people who are here to do something productive is limited.
In short - we've all seen this sort of crap before. Stop it, or have it stopped for you. I hope that's not a "denigrating comment" or "personal attack" or "failing to assume your good faith", but who would notice in your deluge of such nonsense?
Stop it. Grow up. Edit in accordance with community norms, or stop editing. We're mostly bored with you now. Begoontalk 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dangerous Panda makes a good point above re personal attacks through making false statements. Wondering55 has been trashing me throughout this discussion, as he has previously (look at the links he presents), and he shows absolutely zero sign of letting up or understanding that what he does is wrong. I have never attacked him personally, but he has attacked me repeatedly. In fact, nobody has attacked him personally. People comment on his contributions, which indeed have been "wall of text" rantings, for that is what does, that is how he contributes, that is how he disrupts talk pages. He responds by attacking the messenger. I really question whether this editor "does not understand" WP:NPA as someone suggested above; more likely he just willfully violates it.
This editor seems to have a problem comprehending things. We all make mistakes. I just made a biggie in an article on a play; I added original research in the synopsis which threatened to derail it becoming a DYK. That was pointed out. Fine. No problem. I fixed it. Over. Has Wondering55, with all the things he gets wrong, even once admitted that he has actually done something wrong? Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to ANI, but I wonder; could Wondering55 look at the discussion above, about Dicklyon and Duxwing? It seems to have quite a few parallels, and maybe a demonstration of what he's doing could convince him to stop. OrigamitePlease talk here 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Not happening. You have to remember that he initiated this because he felt that he was the wronged party. It was made clear to him at the outset that his behavior was abominable. He responded with wall-o-text rants and forum-shopped to the Teahouse[27], where he was advised not to forum shop, which he denied. After a few days of being told in increasingly vociferous terms that he was flirting with a block, he finally got the message and stopped posting, stomping off with a parting shot that actually he was a victim of forum shopping [28] and that everyone else was to blame[29]. Has this experience put a crimp in his style? Nope. He screwed up a Welcome template and fought like the devil when two admins changed it back, finally stomping off.[30] When he was blocked for 3RR a week or so ago, same response[31]. Now I see he's revert-warring at Fort Lee lane closure scandal again. He reverted all the edits I made a couple of days ago that attempted to clean up the mangled prose in this article, which is a b--ch to read. He is just impervious. With an editor like this you either spend all your time squabbling with his wall-o-text rants or going to drama boards (if he doesn't cry "victim" and take you there himself) or you just give up. Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand; I have read this. Thank you for linking to the pertinent diffs. I'm just trying to get a feel for how nasty the cases on ANI are. (Very.) Also, the unblock requests qualify, in my opinion for a WP:Massive wall of text. OrigamitePlease talk here 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This put me in mind of that discussion, too. Both have something of the elegant inevitability of Greek tragedy about them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The tragedy is the time that has to be diverted from more productive tasks, whether in dealing with wall-o-text rants or having to carry out edits like this to clean up the messes they create. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Greek tragedy as much as complaining about something minor that WP:BOOMERANGs and hits the complainer right in the face. OrigamitePlease talk here 12:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 again[edit]

I despise getting into this sort of thing (and in fact, I believe this is the first time I've ever actually filed an ANI report that wasn't a ban request for a sockpuppeteer, but...), but the behavior of Skookum1 (talk · contribs) has not moderated since the last ANI, in fact if anything, it's become worse. His previous assumptions of entitlement on the basis of being an expert on subjects are continuing, and he is flat-out telling other editors to "[keep] your nose out of categories you know nothing about the subject matter thereof", and he continues to assume any opposition to him is an attack on him personally. However what spurred this report is that he and BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) have been...engaged in discussion...at this CfD (where the above behavior is ongoing), and my attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters was met with this response. This is wholly unacceptable behavior for any Wikipedian, and I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, since it's obvious Skookum1 has decided that I am the enemy. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply "The Witchunt Part II" huh? What is needed is not a ban to get me out of Wikipedia, but as noted/"hinted" by RadioKAOS what is really needed here is an interaction ban against BHG and now you for harassment and obstructionist behaviour. The CfD was launched moments after I created the category and is without guidelines to back it, or anything but IDONTLIKEIT and is entirely AGF in tone; BHG demands evidence and examples, I provide them, she says they're " 95%...irrelevant" and presumes to tell me to "cool down" and calls my detailed explanations "diatribes". "Walls of text" I'm avoiding by bulleting and paragraphing but failing that complaint, she engages in denial and obfuscation and more "bring me a shrubbery" gambits despite lots of shrubbery already being provided.
      • The CfD has consumed three (two? - seems like longer) days of what would otherwise be productive time for this contributing editor; as with the regional district hyphen-endash RMs and last year's native endonyms RM, which were similarly stonewalled by demands for irrelevant picayune information, what underlies the categories being challenged is both consensus and very findable citations; but you can put reality in front of someone, they will still go IWANTMORE as BHG is doing; failing that the tactic being mounted here is to get me banned. Given that BHG has targeted whole hierarchies of categories she doesn't even understand where or what they are about is a case in point of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about not being useful in such discussions; and who have no business nominating them unless they'er clearly against guidelines; which these categories are not, as the 'oppose' votes have pointed out.
      • Calling for a ban against me is draconian and destructive. I wanted to stay away from procedural discussions after the painful round of insults and NPAs and pat-judgments that typified the "burn him, burn him!" "votes" in the last ANI, which was closed "no consensus for a ban or block", but in the wake of which (maybe within minutes, I haven't looked at the date/timestamps) I was blocked by BHG anyway, and then she went and conducted hostile closures on RMs where she ignored consensus, view stats, googles, guidelines and the prevailing and emergent consensus which closed/moves 90%+ of similar RMs.
      • And though I went at trying to work on articles and get away from the witchhunt mentality that prevails in this oh-so-negative "discussion board", I created some river articles arising from creating Tsetsaut and created a category for the many rivers in the region in question and was immediately faced by a CfD from an admin who had blocked me without consensus. The CfD should be tossed out on those grounds alone, never mind that she has yet to provide a valid argument for deleting/merging the categories she's assailing, and has expanded her challenge to my work by going after whole hierarchies of categories which, in various phases and on various talkpages, do have consensus as necessary.
      • This is a nuisance ANI, just like the CfD is a nuisance CfD, and though you claim you're not my enemy, your WP:DUCK action here says otherwise. "A subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will not advise nor submit to arbitrary measures" (Junius) comes to mind. Arbitrary and high-handed abuse from a certain cadre of admins is now far too common in Wikipedia, and is entirely destructive and anti-contributing-editor in tone/intent time and again; this deleted/censored comment of the now-banned Kumioto is one of many of this kind.
      • Actions like yours here and your obstructive presence on a CfD you yourself say you don't care about the outcome of are what is disruptive and anti-Wikipedian....not somebody who stands up to pointless criticism and denials of evidence/example; making me the target instead of addressing the evidence provided is your hallmark; as is deluging discussions with personal-related criticism instead of actually useful, thoughtful comments on the issues and the topic.
      • And yes, if someone knows nothing about geography of a certain region, or about the category system on such topics, then it is not their business to intrude and create more procedure just to stonewall and make specious demands which are then ignored or derided.......I'm having computer problems probably from the 100 degree plus heat here in Ko Samui (sleep mode happening repeatedly without being asked) so won't be able to respond to the inevitable dogpile of condemnations and hypocrisy like surfaced last time around.
      • the previous anti-consensus block by the person who launched the CfD calls into question her motives; her anti-AGF behaviour about citations and explanations provided is just sheer obstinacy and is disruptive and tendentious. I was contemplating an ANI or RfA or RfC or some other measure to discipline her, but I dislike procedure, as most contributing editors do, and want to write articles, not be hauled in front of kangaroo courts where attacking contributing editors is a past-time. The CfD is a waste of time and groundless and purely personal in motivation, and amounts to wiki-stalking by someone who has already taken actions in defiance of a 'no consensus' closure that said not to; how ironic she would claim that long-standing region titles should need "consensus"....they have it; but like evidence that 95% of which I'm sure she didn't read, "consensus" is really not what she wants, other than to use the CfD to overturn it. But why?. "Because it's Skookum1 who started that category so let's pretend there's something wrong with it"......and now, hell, let's just go after every category and title he's ever written huh?
      • Banning me would be a dangerous loss for Wikipedia, but you seem insistent on it for purely personal reasons and here as on the CfD and in previous discussions you indulge in WP:BAITing and what amounts to purely destructive behaviour. I just want to write and improve articles, but my time is being taken up defending myself against baiting and groundless anti-AGF criticism and harassment. Maybe one day "ordinary" (contributing) Wikipedians will be free from the tyranny of the vocal minority who infest discussion boards, be it here or on RMs or CfDs or in guideline discussions; but as long as public crucifixions and stonings of people who do constructive work continue, that day is a long ways off yet.
      • What is needed here, again, is not a ban to rid Wikipedia of me, but an interaction ban against those who have persistently harassed me and who refuse to read or acknowledge evidence and who have no logic or guideline citations to speak of; just IDONTLIKEIT and that's it. I have a great deal yet to contribute to Wikipedia, but the last few months have seen procedural attacks that are totally counterproductive and timewasting......so rather than goading me so you can condemn me, why don't you just stay out of my way and not jump on every discussion you see me in?? Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's can the drama. Shut this thread. Give the guy some space. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • speedy close ani is just fuel on the fire. Close this, close the cfd, and leave him alone for a while. I can't see anything else working.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you Carrite and Obiwan for your sanity. Days of article-writing time have been consumed by the demands made in the CfD, and this ANI is just more harassment of someone who is acknowledged as a highly productive and prolific editor who "knows his shit". I submit again as I did above that an interaction ban is maybe needed; but less formal would be WP:DISENGAGE on BHG's and Bushranger's part; the RMs that were harmed by their biases against me should also all be revisited because of the prevailing and mounting consensus that would have seen them passed/moved. The COI passage on closures says nothing directly about personal vendettas, but that's all that CfD really is, and what this ANI is.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I did not "engage" you. I offered a caution and calming advice, in the hopes of avoiding your getting blocked, and I got a blistering tirade of personal attacks for my trouble. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "calming advice"??? you're either flattering yourself or just not clued in; you engaged me repeatedly before, always condemning and criticizing while claiming you are "giving advice", but your actions cluttered a CfD to the point where even when I produced citations from TITLE you accused me of continuing to BLUDGEON; the bludgeoning is yours, you painting yourself as innocent and even friendly is just..... there are a host of adjectives available...... given your track record with me saying you did not "engage" me by chiming in with a "support" and very AGF vote on a very AGF and pointless CfD puts the lie to the saintliness you are painting yourself as here.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What is being requested here? I don't get the point of this thread. Is a block being requested, or a ban? No? This needs to be at something like RfC/U and not here. Doc talk 07:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd aver that a plain ol' RfC be held on BHG's launch of the CfD and her bad closes on sundry RMs, and her unilateral unsanctioned block of last week. I'm trying to be be a productive editor but finding my time tied up, and my presence here threatened, every time I turn around. The CfD, despite disclaimers that it's not anti-AGF, is very much so and in the context of recent events and words is highly COI in origin. The "Squamish matter" and the against-consensus/precedents closures of Haida people, Bella Bella, British Columbia and others need to be all redone because of the personal bias against me but the closer and their context within the recent ANI discussion/period. As Obiwan and Carrite have observed, I just want to be let alone so I can focus on article writing instead of having horseshoes thrown at me by people who have really nothing constructive to offer; I tried to "stay out of the way", but found myself stalked and pounced on and a whole host of categories challenged by someone who's never even heard of them before. As I said in the last ANI, I'm not the problem here; bad attitudes are, and the prevailing negativity of kibbitzers who nitpick on titles and topics without even knowing what they're about.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Raking me over the coals in an RfC/U would just be more procedure and no doubt an even more hostile and prejudicial environment than ANI is. And to what end? To alienate yet another long-time contributing editor and either drive or ban him from Wikipedia forever? The amount I could have gotten done in the last few weeks/months is obviously considerable; instead I have been regularly attacked and vilified and finally subjected to a public stoning and then a peremptory, unsanctioned-by-ANI ban by the person who now is asking non sequiturs and ignoring evidence provided as asked, and sticking her tongue in her cheek pretending innocence while castigating my information as irrelevant and wikilawyering in extremis. I was accused in the ANI of being a "time sink", but I'm not the time sink; procedure of the sake of the sport of it IS. How much of my last year or two has been taken up by time-consuming procedure of all kinds? Way too much. How many articles could I have improved and created in the meantime?? Subjecting me to an RfC/U to please those who have nothing better to do than criticize others is just gonna be more of the same....Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What is being requested here is that somebody give Skookum1 a plain-English warning that personal attacks like the one linked in the OP are simply not on, since it would be improper for me to do so both on account of being involved overall (and the target of said attack) and since it would be taken as just more proof of being persecuted. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Damn right it is; you're the one doing the persecuting while claiming to be "not my enemy".....WP:DUCK says it all. You had nothing constructive to add at the CfD and here you are being destructive and calling for draconian measures to silence me forever. Give me a break, pal, I'm trying to get work done and loathe being hauled before mindless, picayune procedure that has no real productive value at all. Are you improving Wikipedia today? How? By launching an ANI against someone who just wants to be left alone so he can get some work done? Wow, very constructive....the CfD should be and I hope does get tossed out, and this ANI should be shut down for being the vendetta and witch hunt that it so clearly is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • "Are you improving Wikipedia today"? Well let's see, I wrote an article from scratch and spent four hours building a table in another article. It was indeed a productive day. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Evasion and misdirection is staple fare it seems; you calling for a ban on me for my getting impatient with obstinance and obfuscation in t he CfD is definitely draconian......as is coming to this ANI at all, considering the threats of "escalating blocks" that were not consensus-agreed-to, but done anyway; Drop the hammer and go write some articles if that's really what else you do.... Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • And this little edit comment of yours sums up the cynicism and hostility underlying you bringing me before "the court" today; and imputes that I need "fixing", which is just more NPA and AGF while you wrap yourself in saint's robes. Go fix yourself, pal, I'm not the problem around here, people like you ARE.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Bushranger: "...you're right, this is pointless. Somebody feel free to close this, so that nothing can be done and eventually he'll will be blocked, banned, or "driven away", because nobody cared to try to fix things while they might be fixable)"
                • I am not calling for a ban, or even for a block, here. The purpose of this ANI was to ask for a warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed most of the Cfd -- well, actually I skimmed the last part because it just went on and on.... Skookum1's unwillingness to stay on topic and repeatedly personalize the discussion there is inappropriate. Comment on content, not contributors I find myself surprised this is coming from a 50K mainspace 9 year editor -- it's not a viable long term approach to collaborating on Wikipedia. NE Ent 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick visit to my talkpage this morning shows just how badly Skookum personalizes things. The short version is this: Skookum made an edit to this page earlier - they must have got an edit-conflict, but clicked "save" anyway. It erased someone else's post, so I reverted with an appropriate edit-summary. Skookum then happily dropped by my talkpage to make accusations, and even when they restored their post, the edit-summary accused my of something nefarious. Gigantic time sink.  the panda  ₯’ 10:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There's some bug in the software -- that type of edit, where an addition to one section removes content from another -- happens here sporadically. It's worse when there are lots of threads present. NE Ent 11:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: Whether it was caused by a bug or by user error, the point is that DangerousPanda acted quite properly and non-judgmentally, but still got flamed instead of thanked. That's the sort of behaviour which keeps on bringing Skookum1 to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
To the contrary, there was there a lack of WP:TPG in the statement they must have got an edit-conflict (no, they most likely did not). In addition, the summary given [32]] is only partially true -- while restoring edits accidentally removed by Skookum1 Panda did, in fact, remove Skookum's. See [33] for how to correct an ANI bug removal. We have enough "dirt" on Skookum without piling on nonsense. (It's this type of crap which leads credence, warranted or not, to the fiction that admins are a self-protecting cabal.) NE Ent 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BHG[edit]

On the narrow issue of this CFD, the situation is simply that after I had blocked Skookum1, I noticed that on his return he was posting complaints about me in various locations on my watchlist (e.g. [34]). So I looked at his contributions to see where else this was going, and saw a newly-created Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which didn't fit into any other category of rivers. I looked for similar categorisation schemes, didn't see any, and nominated for discussion at CFD with the rationale: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. Topics can be categorised in many different ways, and CFD regularly discusses whether new types of category schemes are appropriate. Skookum1's response was ballistic. Non-neutral notifications to no-less than 5 WikiProjects .([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) and to User:Obiwankenobi[40].

As Obi pointed out, this scheme could create thousands of more categories so before pursuing it further I'd get broader consensus at the geography page.

Unfortunately, the CFD page is filled with long rants from Skookum1. His reply to the Bushranger was merely one of many diatribes on that page alone.

Skookum1 is clearly a very enthusiastic editor, keen to expand coverage of the topics which interest him. But he has great difficulty with collaboration, and with consensus-forming processes. Instead of Bold, revert, discuss, the Skookum1 version seems to be bold, revert, diatribe. In more discussions than I can count, editors who disagree with him have been denounced at length, often to the detriment of the discussion; countless editors have been accused by him of personal vendettas, and of failing to respect his expertise. I first encountered Skookum1 when I closed a CFD which had been open for over a month. Not hard to see why was unclosed: Skookum1's comments were far too long to read in any reasonable length of time.

I subsequently encountered a lot more of his battleground conduct while closing some of the RM backlog; one of those discussions was what prompted me to block him, because although the thread was a bit stale, the disruption was still ongoing elsewhere. Skookum1 alleges that I have been making "hostile closures on RMs" and that I "ignored consensus". If he genuinely believes that, then rather than repeating attacks on me in countless pages, why not just take the closures to Move review? If he's right, the closures will be overturned.

The personal attack which prompted this thread was in response to a warning from The Bushranger, who is merely one of a long series of editors to plead with Skookum1 to calm down. Others include:

A warning here seems justified, but I doubt it would change anything. Skookum1 appears to have pre-emptively dismissed it as persecution, and to have categorised User:The Bushranger as one of his legion of persecutors.

It seems to me that the question is how can Skookum1 be helped to work collaboratively? Sometimes our contributions to Wikipedia are challenged, and discussing those disagreements civilly and concisely (see WP:TPYES) is fundamental to editing Wikipedia works. Sometimes the result is decisions we like, and sometimes we disagree with the result, but that's how it works here.

Skookum1 hasn't cracked how to work within that framework. Would a mentor help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He also hasn't figured out how to put across his point without using reams of words, which make many of his comments virtually unreadable. BMK (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think using a lot of words on a talk page is a problem. It's an annoyance for some, and it no doubt reduces the effectiveness of arguments of principles being made, but some people use more words than others. It's a minor party foul if it is a party foul at all. I also appreciate that there is a lot of venom and antivenin being spilled all over the place. Everyone involved needs to just let it go, forgive, forget, and move along. l've strongly advised Skookum not to answer here and I hope he doesn't. I similarly hope that this thread is shut down expeditiously — it has done nothing but fan the embers. Skookum is a productive content contributor; just let him go without whacking him in the head every five minutes. Differences in deletion discussions happen and sometimes they get needlessly heated. Everybody needs to breath deeply, to step back, to do something else for a while. Wikipedia is a big place and there is plenty to be done without launching into rounds 6, 7, and 8 of a fight that inevitably ends up with a productive contributor's head on a pike. I've seen this pattern too many times and it sickens me. Just let it go, everyone. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem, Carrite, is that while everyone else forgave, forgot, and moved along, Skookum1 did not, and that is the reason this thread was opened. Being a "productive content contributor" does not excuse unprovoked and vehement personal attacks, it does not permit tossing around accusation of bad faith, and it does not allow someone to tell people to "get their nose out" of areas that person edits in. We can address the fact that Skookum1 has done all of these things (repeatedly, over and over) now, and hopefully retain him as a contributor, or we can close this and just come back to it in a week, month, or year, with another even stronger outburst of drama and the likely loss of the contributor. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a bigger problem here. One that involves more than User: BrownHairedGirl and User:Skookum1. The problem is the clash between those who want to contribute content to Wikipedia and those who try to stop them. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, I've seen you make allusions to this before, and I think you're wrong. bHG has created ~3300 articles (or more?) and probably thousands of categories. What evidence do you have that she, or anyone else, is either 'not' contributing content to Wikipedia, or trying to stop those who are? Don't paint this as a clash of civilizations or of contributors vs others - simply no evidence that it is as simple as that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's the typical tired refrain of people who think Wikipedia would be better off as an experiment in anarchy. They tend to think that the creation of some content should become an impervious shield that protects them from the consequences of behavioural issues. Resolute 23:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

One Month Block Proposal[edit]

Once again we are hear and once again I notice borderline and outright personal attacks in difs and in the ANI comments. This obviously needs to stop, and the only way to do so is to force the individual to step away. Being cautioned has done nothing, and closing the previous thread before enough people weighed in for the week block last time prevented any action forth coming. Since then the problem has expanded, but I AGF that there is hope for the editor. That is the only reason an indef is not proposed. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a nice, round number. One month in "the hole". For... prevention of imminent damage, to protect the encyclopedia. Oppose. Doc talk 10:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment - "to protect the encyclopedia" - the imputation that I am damaging the encyclopedia by expanding content and improving its categorization is just yet more AGF and misrepresentation; the call for a one-month block is draconian; it's like you're all wanting to up the ante without EVER discussing the issues and evidence in the CfD. It's persecuting contributing editors that's damaging wikipedia, all in the name of protecting the encyclopedia but really protecting the prerogatives and apparently immunity from review or questions about their motives, abilities and prejudices. I'm not the only one to observe the ongoing conflict between "wiki-idealists" and "wiki-bureaucrats", and I'm sure finding out what that's all about the hard way. What's going on here is a black mark in the history of Wikipedia...one among many, it seems....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose having created 350+ articles and 980+ images means I'm not a content contributor. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Doc9871: Whether or not a block is the solution, there is a problem. Skooum1's conduct repeatedly disrupts consensus-forming discussions.
Skookum1's response to a discussion where he doesn't like the proposal, or where the debate isn't going his way, is to flood it with rants about all the rest of the ways in which he perceives himself to have been wronged, about the alleged ulterior motives of anyone who disagrees with him, about their intruding into topic areas which he feels are his preserve, etc. In the CFD which started this ANI discussion, Skookum1 has already posted 39,333 characters (2/3 of the thread), most of it unrelated to the CFD. His on-topic points are mixed in with the diatribes, so anyone trying to follow the substantive discussion can't easily skip over the outpourings of his frustration.
This sort of disruption has been seen in countless other discussions. See for example this RM, and this CFD, where the substantive discussion was drowned out in extraordinarily verbose outpourings of rage. All of this runs counter to WP:TPG, and impedes consensus-formation.
Skookum1 has repeatedly been pointed to appropriate ways of addressing his grievances. Don't like a CFD closure? Take it to DRV. Don't like an RM closure? Take it to WP:MR. But instead of using the established channels to review these issues, he rants about them in other discussions, so nothing ever gets resolved.
I suggested above that mentorship might help. What's your preferred solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
why should I not raise the issue of your motives in those closes, or in starting the CfD, which you still have not provided any tangible rationale per guidelines or conventions; that I supplied examples and direct citation evidence only to have you pronounce all of that as "irrelevant" and then make further demands, is obstructionism pure and simple.
  • You stylize my posts as "diatribe(s)" and worse plus other similar/usual NPAs and AGFs you have fielded at me both in the CfD and in the RMs and stonewalled, claiming evidence was still needed - when lots was provided. You ignore the points made by the "oppose" votes, you mumble about consensus and evidence despite the evidence already being there; and re the regions categories you have hinted should also be deleted, you have ignored consensus that lay behind their development and yet now you want a consensus on geography categories and a centralized discussion. To what end? The guidelines and policies already exist, you just refuse to acknowledge them. In that context, why should I not point out the AGF content of the CfD's launch, and your COI with me, personally.
  • You have expanded the CfD to several categories and counting, yet when I fielded bulk RMs "procedural" objections were raised....and most of those RMs done individually, other than yours and DavidLeighEllis' were closed contrary to mounting consensus and also, as in the CfD, by ignoring votes and also view stats;
  • you made false claims that SOURCES says that only GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar should be used for googles; in fact it says no such thing. TITLE/AT was invoked on the RMs that went in "my" favour (i.e. according to the integrity of the title per policy and also per actual sources) and waved at COMMONNAME as if it somehow bypassed PRECISION and CONCISENESS.
  • your resistance to actually debate the evidence provided but instead lecture me on particulars that you demand (they were already provided, I'm convinced you didn't actually read what I posted, as you have before elsewhere) is proof of your AGF in this matter, as is the targeting of a category I created minutes after I created it in the wake of your unilateral and peremptory block, during which you "went after" some of the remaining RMs and gave them "negative closures"....... this is politics, and "in politics, optics is everything. You claiming neutrality and "UNINVOLVED" is laughable.
  • Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack.....
  • Move Review is not about issues, it is all about wikiquette; pointless for me to go there, the negative accusations/judgments fielded by you and others here will only resurface there while the issues and guidelines go undebated; an RfC as noted by CBW elsewhere is only about single guidelines as they apply to single articles; so that's not the place to go either as in all cases various policies and guidelines, not just one, apply; RfM maybe, but to me the RfC/U being mumbled about here is just more victimization while the issues remain undebated.
  • in the case of the CfD you wave at a convention about political geographic units that, as noted by an "oppose" vote (and also in my points about the different systems of political geography/regionalization within BC), are ORIGINALRESEARCH on the one hand and RECENTISM on the other. There is no policy or guideline supporting your nomination and its expansion; there is only IDONTLIKE IT and your very evident "get Skookum1" attitude and tone of "debate".
  • your failure to address evidence and your ignorance of the complete texts of the guidelines you presume to cite, and then rant about my supposed lack of coherence, is just "more of the same" and recognizable in style as similar to the stonewalling and POV forking going on at NCL and NCET; denial, misrepresentation, condescension, pontification, pretending something someone says doesn't make sense or is relevant, and ongoing demeaning comments about my writing (and my personality) you refuse to (or are unable) to read or logically process.
  • I agree with those who say I should stay away from this bearpit and proceed with my work, which I have been doing; but to see the ongoing condemnation and what seems like provocation requires me to clarify the full context of this situation, and point out why your frustrating behaviour does call into question your motives and your very evident AGF towards me. I have contemplated an RfA on you, or an RfC/U, because of your behaviour overall, and your refusal to acknowledge policy or evidence while you continue to drum up hostility towards me. But I dislike process, obviously, and just wanted to be left alone to work on articles; then you came at me with a CfD without any substance behind it whatsoever.
  • No doubt you will pronounce this as a rant to avoid having to answer to your behaviour and your violations of titling policy and more. Ranting about me, and provoking me with non sequitur questions and your refusal to acknowledge relevant citations and examples as relevant, point to you being unfit to even comment about "proper discussion" and also the shallow context of your CfD, which as I have said there is vexatious and disruptive. As with Bushranger, I'm not the problem here....I'm a contributing editor finding myself interfered with by people who, to me, have been harassing and demonizing me. When that gets pronounced a "persecution complex", it's just more AGF and NPA and amateur psychiatry masquerading as "proper behaviour".
  • for knowing the material and the sources, and for being the one who built the mountain and geography categories, I have been wrongly accused of OWN. What I see instead is people who try to OWN Wikipedia, even referring to their opinions with the royal "we", and generally behaving so as to not encourage contributing editors or give them credit where credit is due, but to control them and, if they don't submit to hectoring and lecturing and AGF comments, propose to get rid of them. All because you have a problem with not being willing or able to understand more text than your impatience or inability can tolerate. And you make a personal issue of it, and have closed CfDs and RMs on the basis of those prejudices towards me. That is "not according to the spirit of the guidelines, and violates the every wikiquette you wrap yourself in while violating it with nearly every post you make in response to me.Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Skookum1, you have a long set of complaints about a number of editors, of whom I am one. You make serious allegations against many of them, alleging all sorts of misconduct. The curious thing is that in most cases, it seems to be only you who complains of persecution by them. As I noted above, several uninvolved editors have suggested that you step back and consider why it is that you alone find all these alleged miscreants on your case, and consider what you can do differently to change the situation. So far, I don't see any sign of you doing that.
    You have a few choices in how you can deal with this.
    One option is to continue to post about all your grievances in every forum available to you: ANI, user talk pages, Jimbo's talk, XFDs, RMs, your own talk. That takes up a lot of your time, and maybe it is satisfying to you to air your grievances, but it doesn't change anything. So you remain frustrated, and you also frustrate other editors who want to discuss only the matter in hand. When they complain, you then add them to the list of editors out to get you.
    Another option is for you to use established processes to review decisions which you don't like. WP:MR exists to review whether move requests were closed correctly, and WP:DELREV has the same role for CFD. If you list closures at those reviews, you can explain exactly why you consider the closes to be flawed, and you concerns will be assessed by uninvolved editors. Those reviews are not (as you wrongly claim) about wikiquette; they are about whether the discussion was closed correctly. However, you have apparently written off the review process without even trying it.
    You could open an RFC/U about any editor (including an admin) whose conduct you find problematic. There you will plenty of other editors ready to review your concerns. But instead you denounce process and say that you "just wanted to be left alone to work on articles".
    Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Editors discuss content and processes, review and critique each others contributions, and use established processes to resolve issues where they can't agree. Why do you expect to contribute to a collaborative environment and be "left alone"? Solitary writing is a fine thing, but it's not how wp works.
    Wikipedia is not a battleground. To avoid it turning into a battleground, there are a wide range of dispute resolution processes. You choose to neither use those processes, nor to let go and move on from the things which you feel have been unfair. Instead you bring every conflict with you wherever you go, such as denouncing RM closes in a CFD discussion. (That neither helps the CFD make a good decision, nor changes the RM outcome, nor reduces stress on you). That's your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack..... And this, right here, summarises the problem with Skookum1's behavior in a nutshell: the suggestion that an editor consider mentoring to better work within Wikipedia's process being considered equivilant to suggesting an editor is mentally deficient. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Apart from the personal attack, Skookum's comment also displays a rejection of good faith. Despite repeated complaints about the disproportionate time and effort required to read extreme verbosity and off-topic digressions, Skookum1 assumes that the complaint is bad-faith misrepresentation of a lack of ability. The guideline WP:TPYES is very clear: "Be concise". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You summarize the situation well, BHG. I think this is a problem of collaboration. Unless an editor has a topic ban, there is nothing preventing any editor from working on any article or project, whether they are an expert or newbie. We don't get to choose who edits which articles, who comments on an AfD or CfD discussion, who votes on an RfA. Every editor, no matter how productive or how long they've been editing, has to deal with this lack of control. Ideally, out of diverse opinions and approaches come stronger articles and better decisions. When things are not ideal, well, like you said, there is always dispute resolution. Liz 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Doc: This isn't for a punishment. Every time this problem appears on the board not only does Skookums not curb their behavior they continue it on the board discussing the inappropriate attacks. I would suggest indef off the bat but I do believe that people can be reformed (otherwise I would have to give up entirely on the human race) and I am hoping that a month restrictions would make the user realize "Oh hell, they are serious." Then maybe we would see some actual improvement in behavior. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Solution[edit]

This is about Wikipedia Categories?? Not WP:BLP nor POV nor RS nor article content? Between this and the Amanda_Filipacchi#Wikipedia_op-ed categorization fiasco, I wonder whether they're worth the aggravation. (I'm reminded of an Emo Phillips comedy routine about schisms: text here, 1:17 youtube video.)

Obviously Skookum1 cannot continue the not concise personalized comments long term. See WP:First Law. Given that they're a 9 year, 50K / 60% mainspace editor [41], "solutions" (such as blocks) that are as likely as not to lead to their departure from the project are not actual solutions.

On the other, BHG stalking his edits post-block isn't ideal. While technically not against the rulz -- WP:INVOLVED is wikilawyerishly admin action after editorial engagement -- it violates the spirit of strict separation between an individual's admin and editorial roles. Call it WP:DEVLOVNI -- backwards involved. It's important to the gestalt of pedia that authority been seen as impersonal.

So how about a two parter:

  • BHG will ignore Skookum1's category activities. (Given 1,407 admins and 130,378 users, surely it can fall upon someone else to Cfd categories if they're not quite right?)
  • Skookum1 agrees to keep their Wikipedia: space posts less than 2000 characters and stop the personalization of disputes. NE Ent 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: I appreciate the problem-solving spirit of your suggestion, but I'm not so sure it works.
First, the constraint on Skookum1 doesn't achieve much, because even one post of 2000 characters is grossly excessive in most discussions, and Skookum1 could easily evade even that generous limit by simply making multiple posts, as he often does. I'm not sure how to define a limit, because sometimes posting relevant evidence requires length. This is where I think that a mentor could help him to craft more concise and focused replies.
Your suggestion that he stop the personalization of disputes is a valuable one, and would certainly help. However, he also needs to be constrained to discussing the narrow issue in hand, rather than using each discussion to air his wider grievances.
As to me, I certainly wasn't "stalking" Skookum1; I was looking at his contribs to see the extent of his complaints about me. Since he chosen not to use any of the formal dispute-resolution or review processes (or to ping me when mentioning me), it is the only way to find out where I am the subject of complaint.
Along the way I spotted an odd-looking category, so I examined it. I can see why it is possible to read that CFD nomination as some sort of personal thing, but I just ask editors to look at the grounds for the nomination. This category of rivers was not parented in any other category of rivers, and did not appear to fit into any wider categorisation scheme; the geohpysical regional basis of it is at best diffusely documented.
I would be happy in principle to make a clearer separation between my admin role and my long-standing interest in categories, and thereby ignore Skookum1's category edits in future. If my good faith attempt to open a discussion about a category is seen as blurring lines, then it evidently had an unintended bad effect. I don't share NE Ent's optimism about categories being generally well-scrutinised, but am happy to leave that aside.
My reservation about this is not for me, but that I think it sets an unfortunate precedent. So far as I can see, any editor who has challenged Skookum1's edits or proposals gets accused at length of bad faith. In a long series of RMs, editors who expressed views different to Skookum1's were denounced ferociously; where his opponents agreed with each other, they were labelled as cabals.
I fear that this is setting off on a path where Skookum1 seeks restraints on other editors rather than learning to work collaboratively and follow WP:TPG. That's just pushing the problem down the road, and impeding the normal scrutiny which editors apply to each others work. Skkoum1's repeated demand to "leave me alone" just isn't viable in a collaborative environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @NE Ent: I'm not going to bother commenting more here today, it's the usual one sided rants and (as with Neotarf below) cherrypicked examples, all with AGF as their theme, but I would like to point out I just ran a word count on BHG's post immediately above - 450 words=2,623 characters - while her very editorialized and misrepresentative "hostile close" at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 is 537 words=3,249 characters - longer than some CfD/RM posts she pronounced TLDR as an excuse not to read them (when it was pointed out she shouldn't be using TLDR on discussion boards, she went and dug out a "behavioural guideline"). And what is going on at the CFD is not "normal scrutiny", it is groundless and not normal, but as noted COI/AGF in origin and targeted; disavowals of that are made, but the refusal to acknowledge evidence provided (or in the inability to read/digest it) is what it is. The claim by Neotarf below that my problem is with "every person" [I interact with] is just more typical conflation and misrepresentation and attack-mode "IDONTLIKESKOOKUM1", and the rants here and in other threads about numbers of characters per post overloading wikipedia's servers are ironic; it's fruitless and venal and often mean discussions here and elsewhere that are taking up far more space.....and I know from the BCGNIS template dispute long ago that Jimbo and the MWF told the code-writers to write as if t hey had unlimited space.....so what's the big deal about actual text, or is code more important than words and meanings. You want shorter posts from me? Well, if people weren't stonewalling and tossing NPA/AGF grenades in my path, that would help a lot. I also of course support an interaction ban, and feel it should Bushranger as his own behaviour is demonstrably hostile and his own use of "walls of text" while complaining about mine in the Squamish CfD where he used TLDR as a BLUDGEON, while citing BLUDGEON, is every bit as hypocritical and AGF and destructive and became the focus of BHG's invocation of TLDR to reject that CfD (even though TLDR is not to be used in discussions (it's about articles) without condescending to examine the evidence provided, or acknowledge support votes either.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Skookum1, that's classic straw man stuff. I have never cited TLDR against any of your posts. I have repeatedly pointed you towards the behavioural guideline WP:TPYES, which says "be concise". Have you even read WP:TPYES? The problem is not server overload; the problem is editor overload, when discussions are filled with off-topic rambles.
You dispute some closes; time to put up or shut up. If you dispute them, open a move review or deletion review. If you choose not to use the established routes to review them, stop whining about them.
As to the evidence you provided at CFD, I question the significance of some of it. That's a normal part of a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not support any interaction ban, as one is not necessary. What is necessary is that Skookum1 accept that his behavior has not been within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, instead of continuing to insist it's everyone else's fault, agree to stop trying to accuse others of the behavior he engages in, accept that people disagreeing with him is not attacking him, and agree to engage other editors in a civil and constructive manner even when they disagree with him. I would like to poit out that I have not provided "walls of text" as claimed by Skookum1, nor have I been "demonstratably hostile": I request that Skookum1 provide diffs to support these claims or cease making them. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it puzzling, to say the least, how someone who has never interacted with this user can have "attack-mode DONTLIKESKOOKUM1" secret motivations. Whatever. If all of these diffs that other editors have provided are "cherry-picking", then where are the threads that show this user being able to focus on the topic and engage in constructive collaboration? Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil? A more philosophical question--how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar? I consider that highly unlikely. Are we looking at some recent problem--maybe the editor is getting burned out? Maybe it's time to voluntarily step back and take a breather. Skookum. Dude. You're in Ko Samui, and you're wasting your time arguing on Wikipedia? Go to the beach. —Neotarf (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I do, every day....it's 50 yards from my porch. And as for being burned out, what's burning me out is the endless attacks on my personality and writing; I'm not burned out for real Wikipedia work, only finding my time eaten up by defending myself from persistent AGF/NPA attacks and this ongoing witchhunt. This hyperbole is AGF in the extreme - "Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil?", and also is a false imputation, as can be seen by those who have shown support for me and the areas which I am working without being treated as I have been here, and in the obstructionist behaviour and hostile closures of RMs and CfDs. This line "how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar" is just "more of the same". This user has contributed huge amounts to titles/articles and also to discussions of all kinds, including weather NPA/AGF accusations on various titles and topics; your pretense that I have "stayed under the radar" i.e. escaped official harrassment is equally specious and also confrontational and is "incitement" of yet more. I'd rather work on real material than have to defend myself against campaigns to get rid of me; I'm not alone in that sentiment, as a glance at various other witchhunts and rants about "walls of text" (while committing same) elsewhere on this board and in its archives. Why don't you go write some articles (since you can't go the beach) and drop the axe-grinding and pitchfork-wielding as you are doing here? I'm not the one being disruptive, but my work is being disrupted and obstructed ("tendentious editing") on a regular basis, including here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So where are your diffs, your uncherry-picked examples of where you are focusing on the topic, and assuming good faith of other editors, rather than making unsupported accusations? —Neotarf (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
To User:NE Ent, this AN/I was not initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl; it was initiated by User:The Bushranger. I initiated the previous AN/I of Skookum1. While problems have arisen from categories, they also include personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. These collective actions create a toxic environment and disrupt dialogue, which have rendered consensus-building discussions all but impossible, e.g. 1, 2, [42], [43], etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
@NE Ent: As Uyvsdi points out, I raised this - not because of verbosity (indeed, in the current CfD there was marked improvement from the concerns that had arisen for me in the previous one that's relevant), but because of the personal attacks, particularly the blistering ones unleashed when a caution that a trip down NPA Road was being taken was delivered. Regardless of categories, the personal attacks, inability to accept dissenting viewpoints, and assumptions of bad faith to the point of reading attacks that aren't even there into statements (i.e. the repeated vehement insistience that I raised this ANI to get him banned) are the problem here. 150K of discussion on a single topic can be productive - but it has to be made in a productive fashion, and that is where the problem is here. Neither of us want to lose a productive contributor: quite the opposite. But a productive contributor must be willing to contribute collegially, or at the very least to be willing to accept dissenting viewpoints and remain calm and even enjoyable to discuss content with, even when opposite sides of the issue, as long as the bear doesn't get poked; Skookum1 has shown little sign of being willing to do so, no bear-poking required. All that's needed here is for a simple, good-faith statement that an attempt will be made to keep discussions, regardless of length, on the content and not the contributor or the contributor's motive in the discussion, and the drama will be over. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The specific request Bushranger made was I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, (about the personal stuff), and I think this proposal includes that. While not discounting the points made above (by BHG and Uyvsdi), they're moot unless agree Skookum buys into or is willing to at least discuss the proposal, so I'd prefer to wait for their response before I comment further. NE Ent 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Your proposal does not address the overwhelming bulk of the problems, so is not a solution. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Which is? (i.e What is "the bulk of the problems")? NE Ent 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
To recap, they are "personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy." -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
It is not just one or two people, or just admins, it is anyone who comes in contact with this user. For example see the personal attacks on this thread. People who volunteer their time for the project should not have to be subjected to verbal abuse. They will either leave or complain. If you try to solve the problem by merely getting rid of any editors who object to personal attacks, you're gonna be dealing with this problem for a looooong time. —Neotarf (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Skookum1[edit]

Please look at this edit by Skooukm1, at 0700 UTC today. It's his most recent contribution to the discussion, and it is a mixture of personal attack and misrepresentation, which distorts any debate. Responding to this sort of thing is time-consuming and verbose.

It was made in response to my original nomination, which said in full: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything. All the 6 pages currently in the category are already in other categories of river-by-political-geography. That nominator's rationale has not been amended or added to.

Skookum's reply is: That's an outright falsehood/distortion but all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region; only the Whiting, Unuk, Craig and Lava Fork (4 articles) have Alaskan political geographic divisions on them, none have Canadian political geographic units on them; the Keta is in Alaska but was newly-created and has not yet had Alaskan p.g. units added; your argument is even more irrelevant as there are no British Columbian equivalents for same (the Alaskan boroughs are regional municipalities; there are no municipalities in this region of BC, other than tiny Stewart at the southern end.

The 6 pages then in the category were Craig River, Iskut River, Keta River, Lava Fork, Ununk River, Whiting River. (In each case I have linked to the version at the time of nomination).

Unpicking Skookum1's comment:

  1. "an outright falsehood/distortion"
    Very harsh words, but possibly justifiable if true. However, they are demonstrably false.
  2. "all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region"
    A personal attack, particularly when I had explicitly asked for clarification of anything I had missed.
  3. "only the Whiting, Unuk, Craig and Lava Fork (4 articles) have Alaskan political geographic divisions on them, none have Canadian political geographic units on them".
    This is demonstrably untrue: Craig River, Iskut River, Ununk River, Whiting River were all in Category:Rivers of British Columbia. Lava Fork was in Category:Creeks of British Columbia. Keta River was in Category:Rivers of Alaska. I had referred to "river-by-political-geography". BC is a province of Canada; it is a Canadian political geographic unit, so all 5 rivers in BC did have Canadian political geographic units.
  4. "your argument is even more irrelevant as there are no British Columbian equivalents for same (the Alaskan boroughs are regional municipalities".
    I made no reference to boroughs or municipalities. How can an argument be made irrelevant on the basis of points neither asserted nor alluded to?

Now we have at the top of the CFD debate, a personal attack based on a false representation of the nominator's rationale, and an assumption of bad faith. How much more of this is to be tolerated? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just stop following Skookum, please. Bushranger and BHG have problems with Skookum, and the reverse, and all of them know it. Then stop following Skookum's categorization work and stop opening CFDs and stop opening ANIs and new sections of ANI. Leave it to other editors and time to have perfection in categories worked out. There is no benefit to wikipedia from the provocation going on. --doncram 11:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So the response to personal attacks should be allow the attacker to drive other editors away from topics where the attacker chooses to work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
From what I read above, skookum was doing new, independent work, and it is the followers sparking contention, i.e. being "attackers" in a general usage sense (probably not in the wikipedia jargon of "personal attack"; in wikipedia we too much allow deeply incivil attacking to go on and then castigate those who react to provocation, saying they are using personal attacks). From what I read above, it was not skookum entering an area where others were working already and opening contention. --doncram 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That is a definition of "attack" which doesn't fit with any policy I know of. It also misrepresents the nature of the CFD, which was explicitly framed as a question about whether an apparently new form of categorisation was appropriate.
If Doncram's view was accepted, most CFD discussions wouldn't happen, because they relate to categories identified by editors who approach them as a piece of categorisation rather than as a particular topic where they routinely work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
To BHG, I don't know about "most" CFDs, but I do know that many AFDs and probably CFDs are in fact attacking in nature. It depends upon apparent motive and perceptions between editors. If there was indeed some past history of conflict, it seems reasonable that Skookum could perceive this CFD to be an attack. It was not a neutral discussion, it was a proposal to delete categories Skookum was setting up. It rambled on with more accusations (of "disrupting" Wikipedia somehow by Skookum separately creating more categories, of Skookum supposedly violating wp:Canvas, and more) that seems like badgering. It was as if Skookum could not dare set up some reasonable-sounding categories without advance permission from one editor. If one editor wants to question an initiative that an experienced editor is proceeding with, do it mildly, literally ask a question at a Talk page or something, and consider whether it couldn't be raised in an RFC eventually, months or years later. It seems confrontational and unnecessary to immediately open a proposal to delete work in progress, and yes that is a kind of attack. And even without me knowing about past history, all the other charges in the CFD plus the opening of this ANI seem to confirm that it was personal, in truth, or at least that it was very reasonable for Skookum to perceive it to be personal.
Speaking not especially about this incident, but about others, Wikipedia would be a lot better if we had a proper process to stop followers who have become perceived by a target to be bullying, from continuing to follow and poke. I do not understand how some editors who know they are being perceived as hurtful and bullying, nonetheless choose to continue with the following and bullying-appearing activities. Avoid the perception of bullying. If you know you are hurting someone, be humane and stop. Let it go, let someone not perceived to be a bully in the situation raise a question some other way later, if indeed anything ever needs to be discussed. Again, I really do not know the parties and the history in this case, so I am not speaking about parties in this case so much. But, it is obvious to me that contending against quite reasonable-seeming categories with only lame "reasons" or with attacks on other fronts like claims of personal attacks or whatever, is really really not helpful for building wikipedia or for making Wikipedia a nice place. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Doncram: I have always understood WP:BRD to be quite fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Any edit is open to challenge, and it is then discussed. That's a crucial part of the whole collaborative process by which content is scrutinised
There are broadly two ways of discussing an issue. The first is one-to-one discussion; the second is at a centralised location, such as XFD, which exists for discussing various types of content.
There are multiple advantages to having those discussions in a centralised venue. It gets wider input to the discussion, and it ensures that the discussion is archived in a place where it will be easy to find in future.
With categories, there are great advantages to having those discussions sooner rather than later. If the categorisation scheme stays, those building it know that they are on the right track. If the consensus is that it's not a good idea, then everyone avoids a lot of wasted work.
Categories are different to articles. Articles largely stand or fall on their own merits, but categories are often part of a much wider system. Geographical categories work as intersections between consistent sets, where we have a broadly consistent set of topics intersecting with a broadly consistent geographical framework (Category:Roads in New York and Category:History of New York parallels Category:Roads in Yorkshire and Category:History of Yorkshire). Introducing a new geographical framework creates a set of categories which don't fit in that structure. Far from being "lame" (as you put it), it seems to me to be much better to have a centralised discussion at an early stage about the viability of the proposed new geographical framework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BHG for responding. But you didn't start a centralised, neutral discussion in a leisurely RFC or conversationally at a WikiProject talk page. You started a CFD which called for relatively immediate deletion of the categories that Skookum had set up, which is simply not friendly or neutral. You called for stopping Skookum from continuing (you labelled other Skookum edits creating categories to be "disruptive", while I really do not see how they could be viewed as disruptive), and seemed to be seeking to criminalize Skookum's actions on various not-central-to-the-content/category "issue" that could be discussed. And you were forcing immediate discussion, when it was not convenient for Skookum. Perhaps some discussion, saying you think the larger implications oughta be considered sometime, could have led to productive discussion. And the target could be asked and have opportunity to explain his intentions, whether they were limited to covering just the rivers of British Columbia for example, and then would he agree that the time would be ripe to call for a larger discussion, rather than interrupting and freezing the productive edits immediately, as if there was some huge crisis (not the case, no downside present for Wikipedia readers). And, it was you in particular who was pushing, and while I am not familiar with the background, I gathered that you and Skookum had previous confrontations. IMHO the wikipedia policy should be that an administrator/editor who previously played a policing/attacking/monitoring role that came to be perceived as harassing should be discouraged/disqualified from doing that again...there could be a random assignment of another administrator or just leave it to chance for anyone else to pick up a new issue, but whoever was involved previously and is perceived as being bullying should not be the one. Some one else oughta be appointed, if there is actual real damage to readers going on. (Again please forgive me that I am not completely clear on whether a characterization of past interaction like that applies here with you and Skookum.) One reason for such a rule is that a previously involved policeperson has an obvious apparent-to-the-target conflict of interest or bias, that the previous enforcer-type may be more likely to want to prove the target is a criminal, to justify their past action. And whatever a perceived bully says is quite reasonably taken differently by the target than the same words from a perceived-to-be uninvolved other editor. This is not to suggest that any violator of Wikipedia policies should be allowed to disqualify whoever they want, merely by falsely claiming bullying. There need to be some standards. However I perceived the discussion above and at the CFD to indicate that there was evidence suggestive of appearance of bullying. (Standards of evidence oughta be defined somewhere...I have some ideas).
Also, and this is a huge point that I have thought a lot about, you reference wp:BRD guideline. From past experience, i STRONGLY believe that BRD guideline ought to be clarified to express whose edit is the Bold vs. whose is the Revert, when one editor is creating a bunch of stuff, believing it to benign, and another editor follows. I strongly believe it works best if the creating editor is understood by default to be creating, not boldly doing anything. And a following editor is doing the Bold step, if they interrupt and delete. So the creating editor is given some deference, and may Revert, and go on (and it should all be discussed at a suitable Talk page of course, to exchange views and so on). It should NOT be understood that any following editor gets the right to call their edit deleting to be the Revert and claim power to call any reversion by the creating editor to be edit warring, past BRD. It simply is horrible policy, to empower anyone/everyone to interrupt and have precedence over a productive creating editor, who really probably does have a good rationale of what they are doing. Later, eventually, in an established article, the BRD process would work normally. BRD is written about bringing change productively to established articles, it is not written properly to apply to new works. Wikipedia is not well served by overly empowering following critics; Wikipedia is well served by empowering creators with some respect, some deference, some "ownership" in a good way, for a time (definitely not forever, but the creator should be given some space and some power for some amount of time).
So, BHG, i don't know where you were going with mention of BRD, whether you wanted to claim Skookum was in violation of that, but my sentiment would be that a) Skookum was creating editor and has right to call a following edit to be a Bold, unexpected change that Skookum can fairly Revert, and then, yes, b) Skookum should indeed participate in discussion eventually, but there should be no rush and the discussion should be in a neutral venue and not with ultimatums of imminent deletion and other negativity. --doncram 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA. I did not attack. I made a !vote in the CfD, speaking civilly, and that only got a questioning response - it was when I cautioned Skookum1 that he was over the personal-attack line in his 'discussions' with BHG that I got blistered. If I'm "following" him it's because he continued attacking me at the CfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
To Bushranger, you may well have not meant an attack, but by Skookum's reaction that editor did seem to perceive it that way, and it was adding on to other I-am-guessing-to-be-reasonable belief by Skookum that there was unjustified attacking type stuff going on. So, back off, say it is not important to you, let the editor proceed. My humble opinion. We don't have enough consideration for avoiding the appearance of bullying, and we don't generally have enough appreciation for a target's opinion. Frankly, if someone says they are being bullied and it is not incredibly absurd to think they really mean that, and they are not doing it for some crazy commercial selfish advantage (not the case here), then don't dispute that, let the target say that. It should not be a crime (a personal attack) for someone to say the truth that they feel they are being treated unfairly, that others are seeming to bully. If they perceive it, it is real. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"say it is not important to you": This is, unfortunatly, exactly what I did, before anything else - and I got attacked for it. Saying that he believe he's being treated unfarily is not a personal attack; saying that other editors are mentally deficient, and making up accusations out of whole cloth, are (claiming, multiple times, that I started this ANI to get him banned, and also his statement that I "posted lengthy diatribes against me" - it should be noted that whenever Skookum1 has been asked to provide diffs for his claims there is no response). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, so the $100,000 question is this: Skookum apparently is here to build the encyclopedia. However, part of that "building" process is the community-nature, and the relationships involved. How do we convince Skookum that content-building AND playing nicely with others is the only way forward? What will it take? A topic ban? A short block? Other restrictions? Their response to anything is to immediately personalize-and-attack, and that's not acceptable behaviour the panda ₯’ 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the $100,000 question on, like, every ANI thread. "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??" --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I honestly believe it needs to be something that will make the person take stock. I suggested a one month block above per this mindset, though no one else seems to be weighing in other than doc that cast allusions to me doing it as some sort of punishment. I am a pessimest so I don't think one month will change skookums attitude but I am someone that gives the benefit of doubt. Hell if Skookums could just make attempts at not attacking others and actually working with the community I will happily withdraw the suggestion. However, as far as I can tell and see, I believe that skookums will reject that out of hand because the editor still sees their behavior as acceptable and not an issue. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have blocked Skookum1 for 12 hours for the personal attack noted above, and am considering closing the CFD under IAR, with a recommendation to revisit it in a month if the filing parties still feel it's necessary. The categories won't hurt anyone if they stay for a month, and Skookum1 has made coherent and well founded arguments in their defense (amongst the other stuff) on the CFD proposal.
If anyone are on good terms with Skookum1 and think they'll listen to you, please engage with them and try to get them to back off from personalizing things once the block expires. I and others have said so here and on their talk page but to no good effect so far. I desperately desire not to drive Skookum1 away entirely, but the sniping has to stop. Please assist in social pressure to reform their behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from what I see, Skookum wouldn't listen to a free pair of top-of-the-line Beats headphones the panda ₯’ 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Georgewilliamherbert: I would not oppose an early closure of the CFD, so long as it is done in some form which doesn't prejudice the possibility of reopening it a later date. There is some good discussion in there (on all sides), but there are also too much other stuff to make it easy for other editors to follow, so an early closure may be a suitable step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the CFD as an administrative No Consensus / IAR close, with a recommendation that it not be refiled for a month to allow for the discussion to cool down. This explicitly does not prevent a refiling a month from now (or sooner, if you ignore my advisory waiting period, which has no policy-based authority other than please for the love of god let it calm down first ...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Big mistake! Skookum1 will simply continue to create more categories requiring more cleanup if consensus is to not have them. Are you going to cleanup the mess? If you want to do that, you have to block Skookum1 from creating categories for the same time period. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

Request[edit]

As the admin who blocked Skookum1, I would like to request ANI's assistance in reducing tensions here.
Skookum1 feels, rightly or wrongly, that the ANI episode and criticism elsewhere was a form of ganging up on them. This has clearly been driving their behavior.
I believe that everyone is now aware that a wide contingent of editors feel that there's a significant problem here. The above threads show a consensus on that point, but not unanimous by any means. I would like to note for the record that the message is understood and received by uninvolved admin (hopefully, admins).
I also believe that Skookum1 is widely felt, including by some of the commenters in the emerging consensus, to be a valuable content creator and editor.
I would like to request that we attempt to simply de-escalate from here. No good outcome is served by further poking. I would like to archive the sections above later this evening.
Skookum1 clearly felt that the threads above were contributing to the ganging up, and said so above and on their talk page and on the CFD. Ideally they can just walk away from the discussions and leave it be.
I would also like to see if anyone with experience mentoring would be willing to engage with Skookum1 and see if they can assist in cooperative tension reductions.
If there is significant objection to archiving I won't do so, but hope everyone will take a deep breath and let that be the outcome.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"This has clearly been driving their behavior." Skookum1's nonstop personal attacks against any user with an opposing opinion dates back months prior to any AN/I. BrownHairedGirl and The Bushranger just happen to be the most recent recipients of Skookum1's unsubstantiated accusations of harassment and attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
endorse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I won't oppose a closure, but I will point out the behavior started well before any of the claimed 'ganging up' - it was a result of it. If it's felt it's best to kick the can down the road, though... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's better to kick the can down the road. Plenty of uninvolved admins are out there that can archive this. Procedure should be taken into account here. There are appeals in RL courts that succeed because procedure was not properly followed. "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. Doc talk 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You two have each blocked the user and want to close the case. Let unbiased, uninvolved admins do it for you instead. Doc talk 03:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What would help to reduce tensions is if Skookum would stop with the personal attacks and walls of text. He has now been blocked for 4 days, and then for 12 hours ("de"-escalating blocks??), but even now is busy filling his talk page with--you guessed it--personal attacks and walls of text. On his talk page he refers to this as "in flow", or "managing multiple thoughts", or "in stream of consciousness mode". What to do. A mentor might help, if the user could find someone he trusts, but he would have to be the one to initiate this. He could also take a voluntary break--this can be a stressful time of year with the Songkran holidays, and with many expats in the region moving to cooler or drier climates. A couple of weeks exploring the qualities of Singha or Tiger with a closed browser might do wonders, and allow him to eventually return to tranquil editing. Again, he would have to be the one to agree to this. Might dispute resolution help, after a cooling off period? If nothing is done, or if the problem is merely postponed, the user will be lost to the project, and may even take some good editors down with him. —Neotarf (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand how this user could have been allowed to operate here for so long, with so many edits and so relatively few blocks (though they are increasing quickly), if he's such an extreme civility case with the "nonstop personal attacks". How can this be? How much have we really been slacking over these attacks until now?! Shame on all of us for letting it get this far, really. Doc talk 07:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, British Columbia geography is rarely an area of high conflict. Skookum is a better editor when he's left to edit on his own. His past conflicts (usually over politics) have often been short bursts without quite this level of ranting, and he's often taken a break before going too far. In this case, Skookum took the CFD extremely personally and that magnified what usually just simmers under the surface. And the dumb thing is, he needn't have reacted the way he did. The CfD itself was leaning on the keep side of no consensus. Resolute 13:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I'm all in favour of de-escalation, but this bullshit idea that the above thread is somehow "bullying" or "ganging up on" has to be nipped in the bud. The intent of ANI is to provide a forum (from Latin meaning "gathering place". In complex cases, multiple involved and uninvolved users discuss the situation to come up with a method of resolution. Hundreds of editors have this page watched, and ALL are permitted to comment based on their findings. As is often the case of extremely problematic users, the quantity of discussion is huge. As is often the case when the editor complained about plays WP:IDHT, the rhetoric gets ratcheted up a few notches. That is what Skookum needs to learn and understand - a broad swath of the community finds him to be pesky. The sheer quantity (or "gang") should tell Skookum just how many people he's pissed off. Look, if someone runs for town council election, and they get 1 vote, and 10,000 votes against them ... those 10,000 didn't "gang up" on them! Those 10,000 are independent voices - just like in ANI the panda ₯’ 08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not defending Skookum1's "peskiness" for other users. It is what it is. I only care about his right to due process. The odds are stacked against him: and it interests me like F. Lee. Meh. Doc talk 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Doc9871: One of the persistent problems is Skookum1's own repeated refusal to follow due process. He disputes some RM and CFD closures I made. That's fine; any editor is entitled to disagree with a close, so we have move review and deletion review. Both review types are solely about whether the closure reflected due process.
    But Skookum1 refuses to use those review processes, and instead sounds off in multiple forums about the alleged unfairness of the closures (a lot of his posts here relate to them). What's with the concern about due process when Skookum1 refuses to use it? Where does that leave closers' rights to due process? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to answer that except that he is in a decidedly different "process", with the blocks and all the negative attention. He is being labelled as a wiki-criminal, and the process I was referring to is the "wiki-criminal defense process". Tough gig! Doc talk 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Doc9871: Pursuing that "criminal" analogy, suppose X feels that the courts have treated them unfairly. In this particular system, they have an absolute right to appeal, without any cost, and with no need to seek leave to appeal. All they need to do is to ask the appeal court to review the earlier judgments. No need to prepare a brief, or attend the hearing (tho they ae free to do both if they want to).
Instead of taking that route, they enter other courts, disrupting proceedings by shouting about how they have been the victim of an awful injustice. In each case, they are told that they could appeal, and they still refuse. Eventually, some of the other courts start saying "this is contempt of court", and begin contempt-of-court proceedings to discuss sanctions available.
That's the sort of cycle we are in here. For "appeals court", we have move review and delrev. For "other courts" we have ongoing XFDs and RMs. For "contempt-of-court proceedings" we have ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yikes. BHG, this is not at all a fair legal process, and you are absolutely wrong to imply that justice is free for a targeted person being criminalized in Wikipedia. The target is criminalized, dragged down, in an ANI proceeding, or in CFD or AFD, where the target does not enjoy participating and it is hugely demanding and cost-imposing. While it may be enjoyable, or is at least less repugnant, for the accuser(s). It is effectively way too easy, too free of cost, for the follower/critic/accuser(s) to open multiple "trials", imposing costs on a target in Wikipedia. In the U.S. legal system there are counters: a plaintiff has to pay fees, and incur legal costs that they may never recover, and they risk getting deemed by a judge to be frivolous/nuisance. In many civil and other courts a judge can rule the frivolous plaintiff to have wasted the defendant's time and the court's time, and to fine the plaintiff, even requiring the plaintiff to pay all the defendant's legal fees plus a further fine. It is absurd to suggest that this ANI court is free, or that DRV or other appeals courts are free for the target. --doncram 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) (p.s. BHG i replied above to your last posts above.)
ANI is an arduous process for anyone involved (and so ArbCom many times more so), but DRV and MR are lightweight for the petitioner. All they need to do is to write an opening statement, and let it roll. The person being held to account is the closer, not the petitioner (who can do more if they choose, but many don't).
In this case it would be a lot less work for Skookum1 to open move reviews than to continue writing at length about the alleged injustices in multiple forums. Not only would it provide an answer one way or another to some of his grievances, it would also allow other discussions to focus on the issue in hand, reducing stress on everyone including Skookum1.
The practice of breaking down problems and trying to fix them one at a time is a crucial tool for solving all sorts of problems. Not doing that is what leads to the patterns of conflict which come to ANI.
I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.
Similar processes are familiar to people writing in many other contexts. As a student, my writing was dissected twice a week in tutorials, by fellow-students briefed on how to find holes in my work. As a policy analyst, my colleagues and I performed destructive testing on every piece of writing any of us produced; we canned a significant chunk of each others work, and sent. As a journalist, every piece of work was dissected in an editorial conference, where justifying is existence and content was part of the job.
I think that one of the very big problems Wikipedia faces is that this sort of scrutiny is an essential part of quality control, but many enthusiastic editors lack experience of working in this way. We don't do enough to convey how important it is, or to assist editors in learning the techniques required. When I first started editing, every edit page used to warn editors with words something like "your contribution may be edited without mercy". Those words may have been a bit harsh, but it's a pity we no longer have something in a similar vein to remind contributors that we are not here as bloggers. We are collaboratively developing the world's most widely-read encyclopedia, and editors should expect that any contribution may be challenged, debated, modified, or even removed. Editors who just want to be "left alone" are in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Um...why, exactly, are we using inflammatory and loaded words like "crimilizing" and comparing this to a criminal trial? The facts here are simple. Skookum1 has a well-established pattern of vehemently attacking editors who disagree with his positions, making clear and unambiguous personal attacks (calling them bigoted, stating they are mentally deficient, and etc. etc.). He also utterly refuses to accept that his behavior is unacceptable. This is not bullying, it is enforcing policy, and unless we want to send the message (yet again) that if you're a "content contributor" than even the Five Pillars don't apply to you, we need to do somthing about it, even if it's a sternly-worded last and final warning (which was, in fact, the original point of this ANI filing). And we absolutley need to avoid sending the message that an editor can get out of being sanctioned for flaunting policy by claiming that they're being "bullied". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Learning how AN/Is operate has been vaguely educational, but this is clearly going nowhere. While nonbinding, perhaps the suggestion of an RfC/U makes more sense, especially if a only warning or mentorship is being proposed. No editor thus far has been able to get through to Skookum1 that uncivil behavior is not acceptable. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
@Uyvsdi: This may be going nowhere. But whatever the decision (or non-decision) here, I strongly urge that those who have been opposing sanctions against Skookum1 to see if there is some way in which they can assist him to find a new way of working so that he can experience debates more positively. Call it mentorship, or helping hand, or a quiet word behind the scenes, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"[edit]

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[44] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [45], reverts user Galassi [46], reverts Galassi again [47], reverts Izak [48], reverts Soman [49], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [50], reverts Galassi [51], reverts me [52]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[53] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[54] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[55] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[56] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[57]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's revision history, it looks at though the difficult POV-pusher is Smeat75 (though he/she is not alone).
This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[58] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!
After Galassi reinserted it, Iryna Harpy reverted it again, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Galassi (talk): Rv Not only are the refs contentious, but have turned the lead into a non-lead WP:POV travesty. See talk page."
Maybe Smeat75 should be given a topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I see a tendency by a tag-team of Direktor and Producer to insinuate that Communism is a Jewish invention. Both of them refuse to seek consensus, and cherrypick quotes to push a POV, disregarding the errors in citations which would normally disqualify these citations as RS.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Galassi disagrees? Well, Galassi, seeing as how you're the resident edit-warring proxy for Smeat75, with virtually no involvement on the talkpage, pardon me if I don't collapse out of shock.
Galassi's involvement on the article cann be summed up entirely as "revert Director whenever you see him editing". -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Toddy1 above - that was cited to a RS that said Karl Marx was a baptized Lutheran and I am far from the only one saying that on the talk page. I kept saying that sentence about Marx should not be in the lead because it was not discussed in the article, against WP:LEAD. Anyway that doesn't matter as Pharos did a lot of work and expanded the Marx information to a neutral and accurate version which I would certainly not have quarreled with, moved it out of the lead and into the body of the article and Director reverted every word, that is why I am here.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Smeat75, you have conveniently omitted the fact that you'd blanked other RS and overwritten it with as simplistic statement regarding Marx's Lutheran baptism, plus added that he was a 'classic antisemite' based on a single source all compressed into a single sentence. The source for the 'antisemite' allegation was WP:CHERRY based on this Professor of law's credibility having been established within the scope of the area of law, whereas the RS you selected was essentially a personal opinion piece by him which has been widely criticised.
I am in agreement with Toddy1's evaluation. You seem incapable of being able to approach the subject matter in a rational manner, and have demonstrated no interest in even attempting to. You persist in pointing your finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you as being part of a conspiracy of some sort or another, even where there has been no working relationship between contributors prior the recent outbreak of disparate interest groups/POV pushers. I am of the serious opinion that you should be topic banned. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Smeat75 has no regard whatsoever for discussion or consensus, he just thinks those who revert his content blanking should be banned from annoying him. I mean, if he posts enough sections on ANI demanding his opponents be removed from his presence, someone's bound to sanction them, right? I imagine after this, it'll be the turn of Pluto2012, Iryna Harpy, Producer, and all the rest who are opposed to his (frankly nonsensical) edits. Really though, this is basically Smeat75 "dealing" with his inability to push his edits into the article. Neither discussion nor edit-warring helped, how about another "Ban Director!" section? -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[59]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The edit that was removed was introduced without consensus, amid active opposition on the talkpage. The posting editor didn't seem to read the discussion and/or didn't care that elaborating on that topic is opposed on grounds of being miles outside the scope.
I'm sure Pharos was merely doing what he thought was best for resolving the matter, i.e. "resolve the issue by elaborating on it in enough detail". Unfortunately, elaborating on the issue in detail takes us outside the scope. The best thing to do is to leave it out. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note for an admin- I got an edit conflict which I tried to fix and think I inadvertently removed a couple of other comments. I don't know how to try to fix that without possibly messing things up more, can someone look into that. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(Restore EC removed comment) I do not see a consensus for the changes noted by Smeat75. I suggest an RFC be opened, and Smeat75 consider WP:DEADLINE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 2:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Further comment: This edit summary [60] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I have to state that the irony of Smeat75's ANI title is too much to keep a straight face over. Given the recent ANI-turned-fiasco over this same article where he declared, ""Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me..." ([61]), his/her purported interest in 'improving' the article smacks of disingenuousness. My involvement in the article has been limited to keeping an eye out for POV pushes, and I believe I've clearly stated my position more than once as to Smeat75's interest as a WP:COI desire to redact the article into oblivion[62]. The nature of changes to the lead alone were pure POV turning the article into a parody of an encyclopaedic entry per my responses on the talk page [63].
JoeSperrazza, while I can appreciate that you are a neutral editor, I think you may see my concern with envisaging a reasonable, rational RfC if you take a look at the very, very recent ANI, and at the article's corresponding talk page. An RfC can only be viable where those seeking consensus are genuinely interested in developing a good and informative article are the mainstay of such an RfC. Holding an RfC at this point in time will only encourage yet more protracted, convoluted and plain disruptive tracts of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by interest groups antithetical to the existence of the article intent on wearing down good faith contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Expanding on that. Smeat consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [64] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I promote extremist "memes" and push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". [65][66] He criticizes others for their wording of sourced information yet his only alternative to throw it straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". [67] Smeat clearly lacks the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and continues to try to associate other users with malicious statements or views in an effort to portray them as anti-semites and get his way. He even employs legal rhetoric and claims that he's stopping users from pushing "libel". [68] --PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In this edit Smeat75 changed two posts by DIREKTOR, and deleted one by JoeSperrazza and one by Toddy1. He said at 19:48, 19 April 2014 that this was due to an edit conflict. I do not see how that can be true. DIREKTOR you may wish to restore your posts to what they were before Smeat75 changed them.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it was due to me trying to fix something that had happened due to an edit conflict and if I had been trying to do something malicious I don't think I would come back to the page and leave a note to say I accidentally removed some comments, can someone look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you thought of looking at the diff, and changing things back?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I did look at it and decided that I did not trust myself not to mess things up even more if I tried to change it back, which is why I left a note asking an admin to look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Smeat75. If you look at the article's history page, it's hard not to see the systematic censorship by Director. One example is the section titled "Critical reception and conspiracy theories" discussing analysts of antisemitic conspiracy theories related to the concept of 'Jews and Communism'. Director unjustifiably deleted links and] information from that section, most specifically Template:Antisemitism which he deleted multiple times here, here, and here, claiming the article has to be "part of a series on antisemitism" in order to be included, which every experienced editor (an he's one) knows is wrong, and I have even explained that the article is clearly related to the subject and it's exactly the right place for its use. Yambaram (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Director just continues repeatedly reverting others' contributions (not by me, I have had more than I can stand at that article for a while) with edit summaries such as "opposed to this" - reverts sourced material by Soman - [69] by Soman again - [70] and again [71] - reverts Pharos [72] and pays no attention to any discussion on the talk page (not from me there either in the last few days).Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover[edit]

NOTE to participating and closing admins: The final two days of the Jewish Passover holiday are from Sunday night April 20th, 2014 to Tuesday night April 22nd, 2014, that will make it very difficult for Jewish and Judaic editors to participate properly in this discussion during this time. The post-Passover days are also a traditionally very harried time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Page protection at Bundy standoff[edit]

I protected the article Bundy standoff (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) for ten days as a result of a content dispute. I received a request on my user talk page by user:DHeyward (not a party to the content dispute) to reduce or remove the protection. I have repeatedly stated that I would be happy to remove page protection earlier than it is set to expire if consensus is reached on the article talk page. Not happy with my initial response, they have also posted the request at WP:RFPP and at WP:AN#Bundy standoff requesting that the page protection be reduced or removed - the arguments have included claims that the page protection was done outside of process[73], questioning my competence in the use of page protection[74], and now arguing that my actions were out of line because I never stated how I learned of the content dispute in the first place[75] (for the record, I came across the content dispute via Special:RecentChanges).

This has resulted in concurrent discussions at all three forums. I have requested at RFPP and AN to keep discussions on a single forum of their choice - or better yet, to start a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the initial content dispute; but they continue to post at both RFPP and my user talk page. As it's not productive to have concurrent discussions about the same subject in multiple forums, I have elected to choose this forum for further discussion. All future responses by me in the other forums will be to direct them to this one. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There was apparently an initial discussion on the noticeboard here [76]. Barek did not comment before enacting a ten day Full protection on the page. I requested that he reduce the level and/or time for the protection on his talk page as this is a current event. I requested the page protection be reduced at RFPP as Barek did not reply immediately and failed to properly template the page (indicating unfamiliarity) . It seems the edit war is really a two party dispute over a minor aspect and would be better handled with 3RR and edit warring rather than labeling a minor 2 party dispute as a "content dispute." The result of Full PP is to reward one party of the edit war with a preferred version. It is obvious that editor sanctions are more productive than page protection when the dispute is so narrow. Thousands of Wikipedians are thwarted when a 3RR block or semi-protected or 1 day full PP would suffice. This article is a current event and freezing it to an editors preferred version is counterproductive. I am not a party to the dispute but recognize that the actions of Barek have limited everyone from participation in any capacity. It is not a solution to eliminate participation because two editors violate 3RR policy. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like you to read No personal attacks. The indicating unfamiliarity implies that the admin is inferior to his job and is therefore a personal attack. Second, the 'lock icon' is usually added automatically by a bot, and admins just let the bot take care of it. However, the bot does not have sysop (admin) privileges, and cannot edit the page to add the icon. (But do you really need it? It doesn't add much anywho.) Tutelary (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Implying that someone did not perform a task according to the rules is not the same a stating "You are inferior". If reasonably and calmly questioning the decisions and technical implementations of an admin becomes an example of a Personal Attack, then WP is well and truly f*cked. Eaglizard (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, DHeyward can be part of the solution if they choose. Instead of looking for process technicalities and making accusations of admin competence, the most productive solution is to start a discussion on the article talk page (since the start of the protection, DHeyward has not made a single comment on the article talk page - not about the content dispute nor any other content). It's certainly not DHeyward's responsibility to resolve; but parties who have an interest in the article forming a consensus on the material would be the most productive solution to both remove protection early as well as avoiding future disruption from the same content dispute.
That said, if another admin wants to reduce the total duration to three or five days, we can certainly reduce it - and if the content dispute resumes, re-protect the article again. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Barek: I apologize if you took my actions as being against you personally or even as an admin. The template is important because it tells users (especially new users) where to go to get protection lifted. The first place is the admin's talk page. Second place is RFPP. The WP:AN entry was already in place by another editor so I noted it there. I didn't forum shop this or drag out beyond the the places that are specifically created for this. I think we may differ on what is a "content dispute" and what is an "edit war" and that's my impetus for getting the PP lowered. In my mind, "content disputes" involve a large number of editors that are reverting each other and no one is violating 3RR. It looks like a 5 on 5 match. Page protection stops it in the least disruptive fashion. "Edit wars" involve 1 or 2 editors that are breaking rules with multiple reverts, personal attacks, etc. The least disruptive method is editor sanctions to stop their disruption. In this case, I saw only an "edit war" which is why I requested it be lowered. I didn't consider that you took the action out of process, rather the action itself was not achieving the goal it's intended too. It's a judgement call and I hope you can see that my request wasn't malicious or personal in any way. I don't consider your decision for full PP to be malicious or personal, either, and it's clearly a tool outlined for content disputes. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

  • Proposed Reduce protection to 30-days semi-protection and place article under general sanctions for 60 days. Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor disrupting that article with escalating blocks, a topic ban, or restrictions on editing such as a 1RR.--v/r - TP 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems fair, though 1RR for the article is probably justified anyway - WP:BRD needs to be followed and disruption of the actual content kept to a minimum. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi is supposed to only be for vandalism. It should not be used to make an enrolled user win a content dispute over an IP editor. Unless there's persistent IP vandalism from multiple addresses (which happens, but I don't think I saw it claimed for this article), the article should be either unprotected or full protected. Have we forgotten this? 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with semi (because there's no indication of IP abuse; the existing protection is due to a content dispute where no talk page consensus yet exists). However, I support the other implementations of 60-day general sanctions, and would support 1RR on the article as well. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This was the content dispute that you protected the article for [77]. It's summed up completely with an IP contributions. I count 4 reverts by this IP, no warning, and page protection as your remedy. I don't see any other issues involving a "content dispute." It was on the main noticeboard and was dropped because of your page protection but you didn't note it there. One of the editors the IP was reverting actually made Talk Page comments [78]. It's pretty clear that the IP isn't looking for consensus and the other editor engage him multiple times without 3RR violation. Also the IP editor was asked to create an account because IP hopping made it hard to follow their edits and commets [79] --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The point of semi-protection is that it means only logged-in editors can edit, which means that we can identify and block anybody who edit-wars and they cannot immediately walk around the block. It allows the article to be editable while reducing the disruption caused by drive-by anonymous edits. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with TParis as to what steps need to be implemented.--MONGO 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There is content discussion at User talk:70.8.153.27 that more property should have been on the article talk page. It's in the wrong place but it's incorrect to to say that 70.8.153.27 wasn't engaging in discussion. The points being made on both sides were reasonable, even if the tone wasn't the greatest. I can't do it right now and will be away for several days, but it would be nice if someone could explain things like 3RR to the person (and block if necessary) rather than going overboard with protection and general sanctions. The problem seems quite localized. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I also have a request (for you or anyone who reads this). I am travelling again for work, and may not have PC access again until Thursday or Friday this week. And, unfortunately, my phone seems to hate editing ANI. Can someone post over there that I am fine with any admin implementing and logging of general sanctions from that ANI thread - no need to await further input from me, nor to drag out further due to my internet access issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Note[edit]

  • There is no content dispute. I would like to add a general observation to this discussion. As I am not an admin, I have had time for the luxury of reviewing hundreds of edits to this article over the period of 13 April until 19 April, when page protection was applied. I could not find any evidence of an actual content dispute. I found NO examples of contentious or disruptive editing (other than some unrepeated vandalism). Even the edit summaries were shockingly free of snark or argument. Nearly every single edit seemed a consensual improvement to the article. I did not find a single case of an editor -- not even the IP editor who tried to add Infowars as a source -- not one editor repeatedly tried to insert material that had been rejected by other editors. No particular section was ever repeatedly worked over by a editor or group of editors in apparent opposition to another editor or group of editors. Not one single time (with one exception). The last 5 edits not made by an admin are the single edit war I found, in which an IP and a confirmed editor flirted with (but did not violate) 3RR. In general, I must congratulate every single editor of this article, as I find it to be a sterling example of exactly how WP is supposed to work. I'm afraid I must conclude that the page protection was premature, and inappropriate for this instance. (That'll be 0.02USD, please.) Eaglizard (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Close this out?[edit]

@TParis:, @JzG: can we move on this and remove the page protection? General sanctions for 60 days, escalating blocks and 1RR restrictions seem to have consensus. I'd opt for no protection as semi-protection has some objections raised by IP contributors, and it can always be added. If there is more IP issues, edit warring can be handled with progressive blocks. If IP hopping becomes an issue, then raise to semi-protection. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

All it takes is an uninvolved administrator to close it out. I proposed the sanctions so I'm on shaky ground. Not really involved, but debatable.--v/r - TP 05:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

IRoNGRoN indef block - more eyes requested[edit]

Can I ask for a few more eyes on IRoNGRoN (talk · contribs) please. They seem to have gone in the space of a day from a good editor, to an angry spat over I know not what, to an indef block. This seems excessive for anything I can see reason for.

Declaration of interest: We've had minor overlaps on some motor racing articles. They seemed well-intentioned and working to improve things. Shame to lose them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
History: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Fresh_eyes_please Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

IronGron edited articles at length but there was a large amount of cut and pasting done from other websites. Most of the copying was not in quotes and referencing was unclear to properly cite the source. Copy and pasting can create copyright issues and is lazy editing that should be avoided at least to prevent wikipedia from appearing as a pirating website. He jumped on other editors who attempted to improve an article. He cursed and cussed out editors and admins. He has avoided blocks on multiple occassions. It is hard to determine what has caused this irrational behavior pattern. Suggest to check to see if IronGron is a possible sock for another banned account. 172.56.11.206 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that changing "mentally unstable" to "unstable" is somehow less of a personal attack?  the panda  ₯’ 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a severe case of WP:OWN here. Not going to comment on the validity of his contributions (also allegations of mental instability is inappropriate for this forum), but a block is warranted solely based on his refusal to discuss matters in a productive fashion. If this case is an isolated incident and he is willing to contribute productively in the future (and provided that his contributions are not all copyright violations), I see no reason why we can't reassess his situation in the future. But right now, he's just digging himself into a deeper hole. —Dark 12:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I can see a block – but indef? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I never expected or intended that IRoNGRoN would remain blocked for ever. The initial block (placed by Moriori) was for 48 hours, for personal attacks. IRoNGRoN responded to this with block evasion and a further personal attack, as well as continuing the editing of the article where he/she had been involved in disagreement. I received a request to look at the case, and decided that a longer block would be justified, and made it a week. The hope was, of course, that this would convey the message that his/her current editing was unacceptable, and he would stop the personal attacks. The best outcome would be an unblock request in which he/she undertook to make no more personal attacks, the second best being that he/she sat out the week's block and then came back in a better frame of mind. However, IRoNGRoN's response was further block evasion and personal attack, so I increased the block length again. I also thought, and still think, that just repeatedly increasing the block length was not on its own an adequate way of dealing with the situation, and it was necessary to give a message conveying the message that the current actions were totally unacceptable. The way I did that was to give a warning that any continuation would lead to an indefinite block. My hope was still, of course, that IRoNGRoN would get the message and stop, but he/she responded with yet more block evasion and personal attack. What should I have done at that point? Perhaps brought it to this noticeboard for discussion? Anyway, what I did was to give the indef block that I had indicated was on the cards. I also placed range blocks to prevent continuation of block evasion via the same set of IP addresses that IRoNGRoN had been using. My expectation was that this would make it clear that the one way out was to make an unblock request. It may be that my big mistake was to assume that IRoNGRoN would realise that an unblock request was possible, and not to specifically invite IRoNGRoN to make an unblock request. (It may also be that he/she wouldn't have taken that option anyway, but obviously that is not a reason for not giving him/her every encouragement to do so.) In answer to Andy Dingley saying "I can see a block – but indef?" I say yes, indefinite, but that does not mean forever, it means until he/she indicates a readiness to change his ways. It may well have been a mistake not to spell out that the option of coming back was available, but we are dealing with an editor whose response to blocks and warnings that personal attacks are unacceptable is to keep evading blocks in order to make more and more personal attacks. I really do think that the correct response to that is "you may not come back to edit until you indicate that you will stop", not "you can have a short break and then come back, as far as we know with the same attitude". I shall post a message to IRoNGRoN's talk page inviting an unblock request. Unfortunately, of course, there is no way of being sure that he/she will read it, but if there is no response after a while, an email might do the trick. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, here is my attempt to reach out to IRoNGRoN and invite him/her to come back: [80] and here is his/her response: [81]. Here are some of the personal attacks that led to the block: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The latest uncivil response by IronGron here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRoNGRoN&oldid=605226167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.10.95 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:AngBent repeat of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AngBent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Back in January, I noticed an outbreak of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya. The editing appeared to be associated with discretionary sanctions from the Balkans. User:AngBent has returned and appears to be editing again in the same vein, removing sourced content for what appears to be nationalist reasons. Given the sanctions in place I've no interest in getting involved in an edit war and bringing it here for wider community input. WCMemail 14:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[87] Continued to edit war after being reverted by another editor, so raised at WP:3RRNB. WCMemail 18:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User User:Til Eulenspiegel – how to react to constant revert?[edit]

Here are a few edits that happened to me: I was making a quite small change in the wording in the lead of the article Ethiopia which was reverted by User:Til Eulenspiegel. Asking him on his user page about this, he proceeded to first give an answer, then delete the discussion. After asking him about this on his user talk page he then reverted my question. How should I proceed in this case? That user is not answering as to why he's reverting me, and he removes any attempt at discussions. Here are the relevant edits:

My initial edit on the article Ethiopia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605023501&oldid=604694644

Til Eulenspiegel's revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605025645&oldid=605024646

My question on that user's page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605026721&oldid=593991901

His answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605027166&oldid=605026721

Then he's simply removing the question and answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605027222&oldid=605027166

Me, re-doing my change on the page Ethiopia, at the same time rephrasing the sentence to make it clearer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605027227&oldid=605025645

Til, promptly reverting my change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=605027479&oldid=605027227

Me, contacting Til, this time on his user talk page, hoping to start a discussion instead of just a revert war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605029653&oldid=604225096

Til, reverting my discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605031401&oldid=605029653

Me, asking Til about his strange behavior, in the hope of getting an answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605034150&oldid=605027222

Til, reverting that change too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Til_Eulenspiegel&diff=605035837&oldid=605034150

I finally put the discussion on my own user talk page:

User_talk:Jérôme#Discussion_removed_by_User:Til_Eulenspiegel

In the end, the initial point was just the small question whether the phrase "known to scientists" is appropriate on Wikipedia, and I'm well ready to accept arguments for why this change should or should not be made. Since this is a very small point of discussion, it should not be discussed here. Instead, I'm using the noticeboard because of user Til Eulenspiegel's incessant reverting, making any discussion impossible. Note also that Til Eulenspiegel wrote a few sentences in his revert edits.

Til Eulenspiegel if you read this: I'm not intending to have you blamed in any way; I'm just trying to get you to discuss issues – I think the best way forward is to reply, not to revert.

(BTW, yes I know that for my first comment I should have written on the user talk page, not on the user page – but I would have hoped for the started discussion to be moved to the user talk page, and not deleted.)

In the hope to resolve any possible conflict in a civil manner,

Jérôme (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing here, I have not done anything wrong whatsoever yet you keep spamming my home user page, yes, my home user page, and I keep reverting you. Then you drag it all out here blow by blow. What do you really want? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the user wishes to instead of reverting, discuss it with you. Instead, you revert all of the discussion attempts and refuse to. I'd do the same thing since I'd have tried multiple times to discuss, only to fall on deaf ears. Tutelary (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
How about he stops spamming my user page then come crying here when I remove it? I have no wish to discuss with him and cannot be forced to like this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Jérôme, why don't you start the discussion on Talk:Ethiopia instead of on Til Eulenspiegel's user talk. No one will remove your post there (maybe no one will discuss either, but it's worth a try). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a generally accepted convention that if someone asks you to stop posting to their talk page, you should (the exceptions being required notices and the like). In this case he has, and he has shown you as much again by removing several of your posts and suggesting you are "spamming" his talk page. You don't have to agree with his assessment and he can't prevent you from posting elsewhere to begin a discussion, as Sluzzelin has suggested. But you should probably leave his talk page alone and posting diffs of you ignoring his requests probably won't help your cause. Stalwart111 06:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems sensible - it's up to him whether he responds there and how. But from the looks of the commentary below, he's got other things to deal with now. Stalwart111 21:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. Me posting on Til's user page was my error – I intended to post on his user talk page. Anyway the reason I started this section here is not to discuss the actual wording of the actual Ethiopia article (which is can now be done on Wikipedia:NPOVN#Attribution_issue_at_Ethiopia_-_do_we_need_to_say_.22known_to_scientists.22.3F, or on Talk:Ethiopia), but to address the lack of discussion and simple reverting by Til. I don't intend to 'escalate' this issue, I was just trying to find a place where I can start a discussion about it that is not promptly deleted. Peace –Jérôme (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now blocked User:Til Eulenspiegel as they're clearly edit warring and have broken 3RR to boot. Their attitude to the NPOV post was also extremely unhelpful, pretty much coming down to "wrong place, won't discuss". It's starting to look like they don't want to discuss at all. Anyway hopefully when they come of the block they'll start discussing it somewhere. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Navajoindian[edit]

The user Navajoindian has been making a lot of edits that add unsourced material to various articles and have poor formatting, redlinks, misspellings, and grammar problems. No edit summaries are ever provided for the edits. The user's Talk page has various warnings about this, covering the five weeks since the user began editing, but the user is generally not responding on the Talk page or changing behaviour.The only apparent response is one occasion on which the user removed a warning against POV editing and replaced it with "First i didnt fail!!!!". The user has been rather energetic – e.g., 17 edits yesterday – all exhibiting the same sort of behaviour. Some action appears to be needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this pattern of editing is not helpful; every single edit Navajoindian has made has been reverted, by no means exclusively by BarrelProof, and they've removed at least one speedy tag from an article they created. However, BarrelProof, you posted all your warnings about adding unsourced edits, using the templates {{uw-unsourced}} 1, 2, 3 and the scary 4, in rapid succession within the space of a quarter of an hour, 18 hours after the user's currently last edit. That's not how the "stepped" warning templates are meant to be used. A number 2 warning should only be posted if the user has ignored number 1 and continued the kind of editing for which they were warned, and so on up to number 4. The way you've done it, those warnings don't really "count", and therefore there's no basis for administrator action at this time. I'm pinging Seb az86556, an experienced user who seems pretty familiar with Navajoindian's editing, and who may be able to help here. (It was Seb's pertinent comment here that piqued Navajoindian into editing their own talk for the first and only time, in order to remove it.) Bishonen | talk 15:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
Yes, you're right about my warnings being issued in too-rapid succession. Sorry about that, although there were quite a few roughly similar comments there already before I came along. The user hasn't edited any further since my complaints, so perhaps this incident report can be closed soon with no further action needed. Thank you for taking a look at the situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep this section open for another day or two. Navajoindian has now created a new article, an unambiguous copyright violation which I have deleted with a warning to the user. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Two perhaps related issues involving LordFixit[edit]

There is a rather contentious discussion going on concerning the deletion of Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC here. I discovered this morning that User:StAnselm had struck out all edits of User:LordFixit in the discussion (diff). I reverted this because a quick look at LordFixit's talk page didn't show the usual notices for this sort of action. HoweverI found that User:Jpgordon had indeed indefinitely blocked LF for "Abusing multiple accounts". I see no sockpuppet investigation or other proceedings so I'm puzzled as to what is going on here.

That said, I am having issues with LordFixit's conduct in this discussion, particularly this threat: "If the category stays, I will make sure all articles have the SPLC listing with a source in the body of the article." It seems to me that that such a promise to disregard consensus is an unacceptable statement of ownership. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat. He was promising to make sure that all articles in the category were properly sourced to show that they wre on the SPLC list. That seems to be a good thing, not a bad thing. The block was a CU block, see User talk:Exposed101. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a block by a CU, not an official declared "checkuser block", for what it's worth. Looks like a good hand/bad hand attempt. I've got a short fuse for those, perhaps. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that all of the controversial cases are already so tagged because of the notability of the controversy, but however correct such a designation would be (and technically, using the SPLC itself as the sole source would be questionable), in context it comes across as a threat. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit confused here policywise. Folks are striking all edits of his in that article, as though they were posted in violation of a ban. As Exposed101 didn't even start editing until April 19, LordFixit was not in any violation that I know of when he made most of those comments. Is there something that makes them inherently invalid now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC) added: oh, and as an editor that raised concerns about groups being misplaced into this category, I will confirm what Dougweller said: this was a good faith attempt to address concerns and not a threat to commit ownership. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm also noticing another editor here, and I see from his talkpage that I'm not the only one who sees possible connections:
Drowninginlimbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
He appeared abruptly, settled into some of the same topics, and is also a participant in the CfD. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've personally observed Drowninginlimbo's editing habits and have found them to be mainly oriented around gender. This is not something that is strange, as SPLC does some distinctive work for some things related to gender. Anywho, is there anything you wish to claim about the user, Mangoe? Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Your edit summary stated "another suspicious account", however, I was personally involved in Exposed101's blocking. This whole thing is very strange. For one thing, I live in an entirely different city to the one listed on LordFixit's user page. Yes, I am involved in the CfD. I follow the Southern Poverty Law Center and am interested in civil rights. I have to say, did you really have to drag this to the ANI? If I were a sockpuppet I would have been picked up by the checkuser. Are you suggesting that every user that voted oppose deletion is checked against each other, as well as every user who voted support deletion? That would take a while but maybe it would stop sidetracking the discussion - Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mangoe: If you were concerned about the block, why didn't you ask Jpgordon on his user talk page instead of taking it to ANI? Also, you realize that as a CheckUser, if Jpgordon was looking at Exposed101's data (and it looked like he did according to this) then he would have seen Drowninginlimbo as a connection as well, but clearly that did not happen. And finally, I compared Drowninginlimbo and LordFixit behaviorally, and they don't seem particularly connected (really, out of over 1,000 contributions from each editor they only had a few editing overlaps and their edit summary usage is different, among other things). -- Atama 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall why I decided to go here from the start but having done so the conversation needed to stay here. If nobody sees any issue with DIL then I think we're done here. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:J. Johnson[edit]

JJ has engaged in the sort of behavior at Earthquake prediction that is described at WP:LISTEN. Looking at the past year of that article's revision history, it looks like JJ has exerted ownership over the article by reverting any edits by editors other than himself, and engaging in filibustering and wikilawyering on the talk page (by which I mean lengthy citations of policy which evade the issue at hand.) In this way he has driven away other editors and thwarted any attempt at collaborative editing. He received a warning on March 22 about edit warring[88], and the article is presently protected from editing.

I initiated a discussion at the talk page about what I felt was the use of non-neutral language which gave the article an editorializing tone[89], and followed that up with a request for comment on a particular formulation that I thought was representative of the problem.[90] The response to the RfC was that 6 editors supported one formulation, and JJ supported the other. JJ's reaction is indicative of the problem I wish to raise here. He simply dismissed arguments offered by the other editors, and asserted that other editors merely "dislike" his version.[91] He also characterized the opinions of other editors as "whining,"[92][93][94], and the RfC process as a "lynching."[95] He states ironically, "Why don't we just revert the entire article back to the piece of crap it was before I rewrote it?" [96] Finally, in response to a message I left on his talk page, he says, "You and the others may be thinking you have a solid basis, but as I keep showing: you don't."[97]

Hopefully, these examples are sufficient to illustrate the problem. I would like to see some sort of intervention. I don't know what you normally do in a case like this. Maybe a topic ban would be appropriate. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

An almost identical situation with J. Johnson is occurring at 2014 Oso mudslide and at the article talk page. Filibustering, refusal to actually discuss, berating, finger-wagging, insults in edit summaries, personal attacks, and wholesale reversions of blocks of new or copyedited content he doesn't like. He's issued ultimatums and threatened that if they weren't met, he would revert everything again. Not long ago, at the mudslide article, he actually and seriously suggested we all join him in supporting a topic ban of a brand new editor. I hesitated to mention ownership issues with him in case I was just reading him wrong. Now with the above complaint from Joe, I see I'm not alone in my assessment. It's been going on at the mudslide article for a couple of weeks, now (along with the other troubling behaviors I mentioned). -- Winkelvi 22:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Winkelvi comes with "unclean hands", his misrepresentations being more reflective of his own behavior at 2014 Oso mudslide. If they are to admitted into consideration here then they really should be examined closely, as they are, basically, untrue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
J. Johnson (JJ) and Winkelvi, your arguments are likely to carry more weight if you provide diffs to support them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not here to pile on JJ, I'm here to support Joe Bodacious in his concerns by saying "It's happening with him elsewhere within Wikipedia, too". I provided a couple of diffs in my comments yesterday, so if an administrator or anyone else in interested in getting a general idea of what I'm referring to, they can. -- Winkelvi 21:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  Certainly, if such arguments are to be allowed into the discussion. Joe limited his charges to Earthquake prediction, where the dissension is (I believe) in good-faith all around, and also quite enough to handle as it is. Winkelvi is opportunistically opening a battleground where his own behavior is dubious, and even if I should solidly demonstrate this its relevance to EP is slight. To simultaneously try to expand the discussion while also demanding an immediate response is unreasonable. He says he is not here to pile on me, but it is not apparent what other connection he has here.
  I will respond to Winkelvi's charges if some admin requests, but I do suggest looking at his history and comments at 2014 Oso mudslide before opening that can of worms. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


At Talk:Earthquake prediction, an RFC has been open for 8 days. J. Johnson is arguing his case, but so far nobody agrees with him, and the preferred option is a development of the one he opposes.

There is nothing wrong with being in a minority. Sometimes it's helpful for an opposing view to be expressed, and if done civilly and constructively it's all part of the process of improving content. However, those discussions are most productive if they are focused, civil, and assume good faith. Sadly, many of J. Johnson's comments are combative in tone, and almost battleground.

I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not "spoiling for a fight". In regards of the RfC mentioned I have been trying to get a discussion going that gets beyond mere "like/dislike", particularly with an IP editor that won't engage in discussion. However, I should like to take a day or two to consider these charges before responding. And I would appreciate if you would allow me to comment prior to judging me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That's just my own personal opinion of what you've written on the talk page. I could be wrong (I often am!). As we all know, it's hard to judge intent online. But that's the impression that I'm getting from the tone of your writing (for what it's worth). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In spite of his denial, JJ has been spoiling for a fight at the earthquake prediction article as well as the mudslide article. Now he is asking for a couple of days to respond to "these charges". By that time, three days will have passed since the report was filed and it will be labeled as "stale", with nothing done (if something might have been done). Because of JJs penchant for wikilawyering (as noted by Joe Bodacious as well as myself in this report) and what I've assessed at the Oso mudslide article talk page to be [intent to game the system] ("How about setting that aside until ... Perhaps tomorrow? ... and then we could revert to (say) Gorthian's last edit."), I have to object to waiting any longer for JJ to comment. He was here long enough to acknowledge this AN/I report, why not just comment and be done with it rather than dragging it out for 2-3 days more? -- Winkelvi 00:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Like waiting overnight would be the end of the world? Like I should do like you and fire from the hip without any time for thought or consideration? Exactly who here is spoiling for a fight? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  Joe's charges are not entirely accurate, and a few points need to be clarified. E.g., the edit warring involves the questionable edits of an anonymous IP editor who will not discuss his edits; the protection was applied at my request, and the warning was the standard one given to all editors in such cases. Also, Joe's statement that I "simply dismissed arguments offered by the other editors" is misleading, because (see the RfC) no arguments were offered by the other editors; their comments were entirely "like/dislike".
  Leaving such matters aside, I believe "Failure to get the point" is indeed an issue here. But which way does it run? I believe Joe's view is (more or less) that I "don't get" that six editors oppose me, and therefore I must accept the majoritarian position. However, I think Joe doesn't get that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that discussion is supposed to be based on "clear, solid arguments". And that is my complaint here: that (regarding the RfC, and aside from Joe and myself) there has been no (as in zip, zilch, non-existent) discussion, and that (more broadly) Joe and the anonymous IP want a pass on having to engage in any irksome discussion. Please advise me if I am wrong here, but I don't believe it is "wikilawyering", or a misinterpretation of any policy, to require discusssion, or that discussion be based on more than "like".
  I credit Joe for sometimes engaging in discussion. But sometimes he does not, and sometimes not to the point. When my repeated questions (presumably the basis of his charge of filibustering?) are ignored (what I deem to be stonewalling, which, curiously, points to the same place as filibustering) I allow I occasionally get snippy. I regret that this is taken as combative (is it?). But he does seem to have a low threshold for irony and such. And I hope Joe will understand that my "tone" results largely from frustration that neither he nor the others will explain their real objections, which impedes finding a satisfactory resolution.
  BrownHairedGirl hopes that I will "accept the outcome of the RfC". Please note that I am not opposed to a revision (only to the existing text), and have offered do so myself. The contention has been in determining what needs to be changed (or getting anyone to explain why they dislike the original text), which makes finding a satisfactory alternative rather hit or miss.
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Overtagging at sustainable development[edit]

Continue discussing the content issues on the talk page, and relax about the rest. Stop worrying about the tags (whether adding them or removing them). No need for admin intevention at this stage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sunray (talk), recently made 3RR and over tagged sustainable development. I've tried to sort the dispute out on the talk page, and suggested to add what he deems missing, but instead he made several tag additions, some of which appear to be wrong. He is the only editor who complains about the article. prokaryotes (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of accusations here. First prokaryotes seems to be reporting a violation of 3RR, but I will set that aside, as he has not made a properly documented case at WP:AN3. However, I believe that accusation is a red herring. Prokaryotes and I have been discussing a problem with the Sustainable development article for sometime now. On April 8, I was alerted to some edits to sustainability articles made by prokaryotes that were of concern to another editor. When I took a look, I did see some problems and identified my concerns to prokaryotes on his talk page.
Following discussion, I realized that the problems were not actually initiated by him, he was simply perpetuating them (perhaps innocently). I tagged the article and began to document the problems on the talk page. Prokaryotes removed my tag. This has led to a protracted discussion. He has disputed much of what I've said, so I've tried hard to explain. Finally after documenting the most serious problem—my concern about WP:WEIGHT in the article—I put the "multiple issues" tag back (earlier today). He again removed it. So I put it back with a request that he leave the tag on the article. I explained on the talk page that I would go through the article and tag the various problems. When I began to do that, he again reverted the "multiple issues" tag and also some of the specific tags in the body of the article. Then he made this complaint of "overtagging" (sigh).
I am concerned that prokaryotes doesn't seem to be very familiar with the subject matter of the article and doesn't seem to understand core policies, such as WP:NOR and WP:VER. He is also, apparently, a stranger to the concept of collaborative editing. Sunray (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:TAGGING It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags., thus 12 tags are to much. WP:TAGGINGIf you identify a issue with a page, and yet the issue is trivial or has a straightforward solution, it's usually best to fix it yourself! This is more productive than plastering a tag complaining about a trivial or easily fixed issue and leaving it for someone else to tidy up. prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:TAGGING is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Initially I just put one tag on the article. You said it wasn't justified. That was April 9. I have been patiently trying to explain it ever since. You pay no attention to what I say, so I have begun going through the article and flagging the problems. Now you object to that?? Help! Sunray (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and many essays are reflections of consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If they reflect consensus, then make them into policies! Easy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the policy-making process can be compared to beating one's head against a brick wall. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunray, discussed what he deemed problematic on the talk page with me and one another editor, it evolved around the different approaches (in particular a three or four domain/pillar approach) on that page, based on edits i haven't been involved. However, what he has done now is to add multiple tags to the article without acknowledging them on the talk page first. The one content problem discussed should not be a reason for a notice, because it may be because of missing content, which just should be added, if correct. The editor hasn't clearly communicated or identified errors. The various different tags made the article now very confusing to read. prokaryotes (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks leading to a possible bad faith nomination for Yes Sir Boss[edit]

Editor Barney the barney barney has been involved in several personal attacks which I chose to ignore despite how highly unacceptable they were: here and here. I never ANI something so trivial, however I consider Barney's recent actions more serious and disruptive.

Editor lacks an understanding as to what fall into the category of speedy delete. My article was well cited and included sources from BBC, Huffington Post, and FMV Man. The previous version was apparently promotional in tone which I cleared. User:Tokyogirl79 has declined the speedy. Barney has accused me of adding spam and vandalism to Wikipedia which obviously is not true. I've since resubmitted the article through AfC which passed.

Barney continued additional personal attacks found here accusing other editors of incompetency despite proper procedure being followed.

The last straw was in his AfD which he accused me of WP:COI which is completely unfounded. This leads me to believe this nomination may be in bad faith.

It appears that this user has a history of improper attacks and I am requesting a temporary block. Valoem talk contrib 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was clearly nominated in good faith. The article is quite frankly, a bag of poo. It doesn't meet the required guidelines, due to complete lack of significant coverage, probably never will meet any guidelines, and honestly is pushing to be a speedy delete. I see no reason why WP:BOOMERANG should apply and that Valoem (talk · contribs) should get double the block he suggests for suggesting the block in the first place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons you stated for deletion was that I was a WP:COI editor, do you have evidence for this, because if not that is an improper personal attack. Because you are attempting to delete an article on false grounds it is considered disruptive. I could have ANIed on your first incident, but took the high road and simply ignored them, this however, shows me that turning the other cheek is not always appreciated. Valoem talk contrib 16:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks behind any of Valoem's links. The old version of Barney's talk page doesn't even feature any interaction between the two of them, just Valoem using a tone that's no less combative than Barney's. Nothing to see here, move along. Lagrange613 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In case you missed it the attack is here: "On unnotable subjects such as Yes Sir Boss (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss), then other people would not feel compelled to spend their time in an essentially unproductive manner fixing your mess? This was a stonewall speedy delete, any day of the week, so lecturing me that it is a bit like trying to teach your grandmother to suck rancid eggs - I can tell their rancid, please don't pretend that they're not. I'm not as stupid as you clearly think I am." Valoem talk contrib 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, not a personal attack, just a combative tone. Maybe a little uncivil, but that merits a polite warning à la Tokyogirl, not the drama multiplication of ANI. Your reply to Barney above feels pretty wikilegal. I recommend you back down before this boomerangs. Lagrange613 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Teaching grandmother to suck eggs helps with context.--v/r - TP 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
No reason to discuss further if you do not consider it a personal attack. I've ignored that attack nonetheless. To AfD an article on the grounds that claim I have a COI, is the main issue for this ANI. Valoem talk contrib 17:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
AfD is an uncivil place. Sometimes it's best to just ignore the incivility, as long-time users, who are the major contributors there, are skilled at walking the line between incivility and personal attacks. Accusations of a COI are insulting, yes, but they're not necessarily an insult. Someone once filed a frivolous COI case against me on COI/N. I was deeply insulted, to say the least. Eventually, I decided to just ignore it; the filer had no evidence at all, and my angry protestations were just prolonging the situation. I suggest you both just drop it and abandon any grudges. It's not worth it, and neither of you have done anything worthy of sanctions yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone, I'm User:Anupmehra, and I'm invited to make a comment here, by User:Valoem. I didn't knew him before until the ongoing AfD discussion here. I have never interacted with the User:Barney the barney barney either and other editors who have already given their input on this incident.
I'm a AFC reviewer and Draft:Yes_Sir_Boss was one, I reviewed and considered eligible for inclusion today. I noticed, Yes_Sir_Boss is redirect to some other article, therefore I tagged the redirect under CSD#G6 criteria of speedy deletion and a template note was automatically posted on the draft page to move it to articles space, for the admin deleting the redirect. Later, I noticed that, my edit to speedy redirect was reverted by some editor (diff. link) and the draft I reviewed was tagged with CSD#G4 for deletion by the same person (diff. link). It clearly indicate either vandalism, disruptive or bad-faith editing. Some other uninvolved editor noticed this incident and raised it in an ongoing discussion on User_talk:Tokyogirl79 page, the user said, "[..]the reviewer doesn't actually have a clue[..]" (diff. link). Well, the reviewing admin User:Favonian declined the speedy deletion (diff. link). The disruptive editing did not stop here, the user brought a clearly notable article to AfD (diff. link). It looks like a WP:DUCK case, where the user wants the article to get deleted any how. He doesn't hesitate to make personal attacks for this purpose, as such here. One could simply review his talk page history for some other instances, where he repeatedly makes personal attacks.
I'm not regular to ANI, and this is why not sure, if above does bring a sanction or not. But, the persistent disruptive and bad-faith editing and a long history of making personal attacks ([98], [99], [100], [101]) suggests something must be done,, to put an end to all this. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So now bringing an article to AfD after CSD has been declined is evidence of bad faith, and it's a personal attack to not respond to a message on one's talk page? Lagrange613 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Anupmehra, actually bringing an article to AFD after a declined CSD is the correct thing to do if you believe the article is not notable. The two deletion processes used two completely different criteria. CSD is very strict and most articles do not meet the criteria to be deleted. Articles that can not be deleted through CSD can still be deleted at AFD. Also the article is not clearly notable based on the discussion so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss (2nd nomination). GB fan 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the point has been missed here. I have no issues with him bring the article to AfD if he feels it is not notable. However, it is a given that an article coming from AfC does not fall into the speedy criteria, which Barney still tagged. This compounded with multiple personal attacks, plus an attempt to delete based on the false claims of me having a COI pushed me into this ANI. Do we have an explanation for this behavior? Valoem talk contrib 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Barney x 3 was asked to be less bitey. Valoem has been advised that AfD discussions are often unpleasant with experienced editors sometimes being careful to toe the line of incivility and personal attacks without going over it. The article for deletion discussion is proceeding. Is this resolved? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GB fan for pinging me. I'm here, either being mis-understood or mis-quoted. I didn't mean to say that bringing an article to AFD following CSD decline is a disruptive or vandalism or bad-faith editing. I wanted to say, if some one tags, a reviewed and approved AFC submission awaiting for uncontroversial deletion of redirect (CSD#G6) in mainspace under speedy deletion criteria CSD#G4, then it is disruptive. Last AFD was 3 years ago, CSD#G4 clearly says, it applies only for "most recent deletion discussion". This kind of edit from an experienced editor suggests notion of disruptive editing. Making a revert, as this, is disruptive. An experienced editor, tags an article having multiple RS including BBC and Huff. post, with some CSD tags, then it is disruptive. Making a personal attack as such, this, is disrupting! And, there's long history, if someone reviews the user talk page and contribution history. He has already been advised multiple times by more experienced editors as such admins, (click here), but as it does not seem to stop, there, it warrants something, to put an end to all this.
This is a summary of all what I earlier said, Hope, it is clear this time. Give me a chance to clarify, if it still is not clear. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I was responding to the line in your earlier statement, "The disruptive editing did not stop here, the user brought a clearly notable article to AfD" It appears that you are saying that Yes Sir Boss is clearly notable and that the editor that brought it to AFD was being disruptive. If that was not your intention, I misunderstood. GB fan 00:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm familiar with BtBB. If you look at his block log, I was the last person to block him (for edit-warring at, of all places, an ANI archive) and I've had to give him warnings at other times. So I'm no apologist for him. Then again, I've also sided with him in disputes, and he's been helpful at SPI, see this case which I closed that he did a good job of putting together. I've found him to often be rude but never crossing over into personal attack territory. What I got out of this report is that he screwed up. He tagged a page for G4 that quite clearly didn't meet the criteria. I don't think it was done maliciously, I think it was just wrong. I also don't see the AfD as malicious either, and obviously it wasn't completely out of line because so far I'm seeing a reasonable amount of support for the deletion (though it seems like there's no consensus either way right now). I'm having trouble understanding where the COI accusation came from (what is the nature of this conflict of interest?) and BtBB should retract that if there's nothing to back it up. But that's about the worst of what I've looked at. Calling someone's contributions poor, and accusing them of spam, those aren't personal attacks, they're criticisms of a person's actions. There's a difference. -- Atama 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredin323[edit]

I am kind of at a loss how to deal with User:Fredin323. He has been edit warring at California State University, Fresno (and also Topeka, Kansas, but this posting is about Fresno State.) He continues to delete sourced information about student demographics such as here, despite there being a consensus at Talk:California State University, Fresno#Student Demographics to include it as is done in 22 out of 23 CSU articles on Wikipedia. He is now removing all the formatting changes and duplication removal done here and here. He also appears to be editing as User:Chessandcheckers which is at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fredin323. He recently came off a block for edit warring and has resumed the same tactics. Recommend a longer block or stronger because of the edit warring and probable sockpuppetry. Bahooka (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This notice seems to have become buried with no response from an admin about the continued edit warring and sock puppetry of this user. I'm hoping that an admin will be able to review this request or let me know if I need to provide additional information. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Really could use some help here. The User:Fredin323 continues to edit war and remove legitimate edits just now here, now as User:Chessandcheckers. This is already at WP:SPI. Is there a more appropriate forum to have admin stop this person. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bahooka:, I doubt anything can/will be done until the SPI is checked. If the eediting is blatant vandalism them report at WP:AIV to stop any disruption in the mean-time. GiantSnowman 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, he has been reverting everyone against consensus and destroying formatting, etc. It is beyond a content dispute, it is purely disruptive. I will take it to AIV. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User MONGO, article Chad_Kellogg[edit]

I proposed a 1 sentence 1 source addition to this article [102], at [103]...please scroll down to the bottom section titled Proposed Controversy Section. My proposed addition is--

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[104]

User Mongo and apparently 1 other administrator have not permitted my addition, & will not discuss it, & will not wait for the opinions of others.

In that section[105], user Mongo responds "Everestrecords is apparently a single purpose account" This is obviously dishonest[106], he also states "Everestrecords wants to spit on the grave of this person...it's negative and petty and doesn't improve the article anyway." Untrue. The climber is controversial, Outside Magazine did major article recently on a negative issue (steroid use of Everest climbers), and the climber was reported in the article.

In the reason for user Mongo's most recent edit, he states [107] "walk away now or face an indefinite block". In a past edit [108] he sates "youre not able to see the light". In his earlier comment on 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [[109] he states "there is no reason for you to defame him with such a trivial issue", "Kellogg used one pill one time as a preventative not as an aid..so what!", "He's dead now...what's your point? You seem hell bent on only having the part about his use of the drug and fail to mention why he did...you misrepresent the full story".

I consider his comments about me to be personally attacking, attempts to intimidate, and attempts to provoke, and to show his intense bias. Also, is comments about the article are biased. The article is about a serious controversy, and the climber is named and reported on and quoted as having taken the steroid in the article. I'd be happy to add more text to my proposed addition to explain things as Mongo recommends, but I thought my 1 sentence addition was more appropriate due to being more brief.

The article as it is seems unbalanced. I twice added a POV template [110], user Mongo removed them within minutes, I believe the templates are supposed to remain until there is full consensus on the problem.

The article is mostly about his speed-climbing, claimed records, etc., and the Outside Magazine article did a paragraph on his Everest speed climbing. Again [[111]] 40th paragraph from the top.

If you could advise me on how to proceed with this matter I'd appreciate it

Everestrecords (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure....let's chat about where you called me a sociopath, a vandal, a monster on my talk page and where you have been blocked twice in the last 10 days for edit warring with numerous others on that article. No you just don't get it and I can't see any reason why we don't just block you indefinitely for disruption, among other things.--MONGO 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This does indeed appear to be a single-purpose account, focusing on Kellogg's alleged use of the drug, and using sources such as http://fraudmountaineer.wordpress.com that seem equally focused on this topic. This account has also been blocked for edit-warring, has described disputes as vandalism [112], [113] and made extravagant personal attacks on MONGO when confronted [114] and claiming those who dispute their edits are " fan-stalkers of Kellogg." Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If any of these personal attacks are repeated Everestrecords should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • and I'd recommend an immediate topic ban from the Kellogg article. Wordpress as a source for a BLP? Seriously? the panda ₯’ 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I stumbled into Everertrecords and his editing as they were trying to undermine information on the Mount McKinley article, particularly in regards to Chad Kellogg, a recently deceased mountain climber. BLP is less enforceable on the deceased but as far as recently deceased, it's probably better to err on the side of caution. The material that Everestrecords wishes to add is negative and not really very important..all it is is that Kellogg admitted before he died that on one attempt to speed climb Mount Everest, he took a supplement, one pill just one time, and stated he did so as a preventative not as an aide. Everestrecords is hell bent on only adding the part about the pill use, without expanding on what the climber actually said. This appears, even in the bio of a deceased person, to be nothing more than a smear....in an article about a recently deceased person it's just a deliberate insult. Whatever pill use the climber admitted to, it is inconsequential anyway since the one time he admitted to using the pill, it did not result in a successful effort.--MONGO 18:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So to sum up... BLP violations (recently-deceased people fall under BLP), single-purpose account, edit-warring, and personal attacks (pretty vicious ones too, this one is inexcusable). I'm not seeing how Wikipedia benefits from Everestrecords having editing privileges. -- Atama 17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
          • All of the comments above are about what happened 1+ weeks ago. Apologies, and it will not happen again.
          • I'm not using the wordpress reference any longer, and will no longer use any self-published references, including I won't use Collin Wallace's distinguished Everest history website, because it's self-published.
          • My account is not single-purpose. List of my contributions [115]

Everestrecords (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution requested here [116]

Everestrecords (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question. Could you let me know what is wrong with the addition I did to the article 1.5 weeks ago? This is it. This is what led to all of the days of 25+ paragraphs of debate. 1 sentence, 1 source (Outside Magazine.

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[117]

The edit waring, etc, began after the above addition was deleted and not permitted and no discussion permitted by user Mongo. Sorry again about the edit waring. I'm wondering now about the simple 1 sentence 1 source additon and why it wasn't permitted and not discussed by user Mongo and no one else including when I did help-me requests.

Everestrecords (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every edit you've made this month has been focused on denigrating Kellogg, except for a foray into attacks on Tina Sjögren such as this: [118]. If you think that kind of edit is acceptable, and if you're willing to attack other editors in the manner that you have when confronted, I don't think you should be editing. You certainly have no business editing biographies, living or dead. You have not come to this noticeboard with clean hands, and you've been skating around the personal attacks with statements like "the edit-warring, etc." Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How is the 1 sentence 1 source article a denigration on Kellogg?

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[119]

I also asked about this in my previous comment, and 3-4 times last week. The article is national media, my statement is just factual, I was open to rewording it, etc.

Why is the above statement a deingration/attack? Ive seen dozens of wikipedia articles with 99% positive about someone and then a Controveersy section.

Why were my edits "attacks" on Tina Sjogren? I simply used the article as a source. But anwyay I will not use the source again, so have nothing to add to the article on her. Nor anywhere else.

I'll also not do any edits of any articles unless they're accepted in the Talk page. Best for new users unfamiliar with wikipedia to do this. I should haev used the 3rd party help first, and Dispute Resolution, and so on. Apologies again.

I couuld check back in a few weeks, and try again at the Talk page about my OUtside Magazine proposal. Maybe this is best? i'LL not do any edits/additons to articles again. Will leave that up to the people that work here or who are established here. I didn't understand this before.

Everestrecords (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be using Wikipedia to settle scores: the Sjögren edit is unambiguous defamation that has no place in an encyclopedia. The fact that you don't understand that is of great concern. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what benefit is served to the article on Chad Kellogg or to Wikipedia by adding this incident that is so petty it would never stand in any BLP. To be very very blunt...the addition of this edit to that bio is in such poor taste...and doesn't even tell us what the man actually admitted to. He said before he died that he took one pill one time to prevent injury not to aide his effort to speed climb Mount Everest. Its such a minor issue that even the one reference that mentions it, that was in a magazine and published before he died, waits for 40 paragraphs before it mentions it...it's a non issue since no records were broken by this "drug abuse". Everestrecords tunnel vision on this is ridiculous...he's made nary one useful edit anywhere to the encyclopedia...he is exactly the kind of editor that makes real editors want to quit in disgust. Now he's also forum shipping at the dispute resolution noticeboard to POV push this bull.--MONGO 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Everestrecords was also busy pushing negative information at a different BLP last November..between that argument and the one that commenced over this issue a couple weeks back Everestrecords made no edits with that account for over four months.--MONGO 03:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yet another example of Everestrecord's apparent motivations can still be seen at ...Talk:Tina Sjögren.--MONGO 03:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature Forgery/Impersonation by User:Zackdichens12[edit]

Different colours, different text and unless I'm badly mistaken you don't own the copyright to that font or to arrows. This is a noticeboard for real issues, which this is not--Jac16888 Talk 19:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zackdichens12 has decided he wants a new signature but it's exactly the same as mine (minus the colours/name), I've asked him to change but to no avail, I've also been reverted/warned by Werieth over it
Anyway totally understand everyone will have a similar signature but his is literally identical and I believe it comes under WP:SIG#Forgery which says "Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation" - I honestly do consider it an impersonation, Cheers, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was literally identical I wouldnt be arguing this, however different text and colors makes this a non-issue. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
As can be seen on User talk:Zackdichens12, nobody is going to mistake one signature for the other. It isn't 'literally identical'. It is vaguely similar. As for example is my signature to the multitude of other contributors who use no markup and CamelCase in theirs. I suggest you forget about it, and find something useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
But it is identical tho .... If he even removed the arrows I wouldn't have a problem but it's clear he's just copied mine literally so I do consider it an impersonation, And trust me I want to move on but would rather this be solved, Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I haven't looked, but is this a proxy for some underlying dispute that the two of you have? Or are you two actually getting this bent out of shape about silly signatures? Incidentally, I would also like to report AndyTheGrump for copying my signature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know nope, Haha you might aswell report everyone :), Joking aside as I said even if he modified it better I wouldn't have a problem to be honest, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
While the "design" of the signatures is the same, the content is entirely different, so there is not the least possibility that anyone will mistake one for the other. If both of these editors don't drop this ultra-silly squabble immediately, I suggest they both be required to use the standard sig. BMK (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you're someone I hugely respect so point taken, Case dropped lol. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jackson High School (Jackson, Michigan) and JacksonViking[edit]

Despite numerous requests to discuss matters on the article talk page posted to his user page from more than one editor, this editor keeps reinserting content I have removed with what I feel is a legit explanation, including referring to my edits as vandalism. This is a content dispute, but WP:BURDEN does fall on him to justify his reinsertion. At least the BLP violations have been toned down. I would like to resolve this dispute amicably, but if the guy won't talk, what's a boy to do? John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC) :And I am sorry, I meant to post this to the EW noticeboard, which I shall do forthwith. John from Idegon (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that you blank this, then. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Changed my mind. I have never used the EW noticeboard and its reporting template is not really suitable for the slow edit war going on here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: When reporting someone on this noticeboard, it is required that you leave them notice, as it says at the top of this board. You have not done so. -- Atama 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: JacksonViking left a message on John from Idegon's user talk page to discuss the article. This is an improvement over the persistent edit war. It does unfortunately show some ownership mentality ("I apologize for my editing of MY school's wikipedia page"). But it's better than no communication at all. The discussion could continue on that user talk page (if that brings a peaceful resolution then so be it) though it would be preferable at the article talk page where other editors working on the article can see what issues are being debated, and could also participate in the discussion. -- Atama 15:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies over the not leaving notice. I was editing at work and got called away and never got back. And since he is now sorta kinda trying to engage, that is all I need here. Feel free to close this. John from Idegon (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It happens, no worries. As I said, JacksonViking is showing some problematic signs even when communicating with you so if this escalates or you can't get through to the editor leave a note here if this thread isn't archived yet. Engaging you in discussion is a good first step but it doesn't necessarily mean the problem is resolved. -- Atama 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Contents removed from the Davido article[edit]

Greetings Administrators, I am not satisfied with the response Diannaa has given me regarding the removal of the "controversial incidents" section that I added to the Davido article. I understand that she has been cleaning up several articles created by another user, and has gotten rid of the several content that are in direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I appreciate her for doing that. What I don't appreciate is the response that I have been giving. In this edit, she removed what she felt was a copyright violation, and left an edit summary, stating: "remove "Controversial incidents" per WP:BLP: poorly sourced negative content about a living person". When I saw this, I went to her talk page and left her this note. I didn't agree with her "poorly source" comment, and told her that I cited two Punch references and a Premium Times reference. (Punch and Premium Times are two notable newspapers in Nigeria for those who don't know). How can she said that the content is "poorly source" when these are notable newspaper references? She also said that the contents of the section are negative. This sounds like a fan of Davido reading his article and removing things that they do not want others to read. A core fan of Michael Jackson cannot come to Wikipedia and read his child rape allegation and remove it simply because he/she thinks that the contents are "negative". Back to Davido. The incidents that happened in Nigeria are factual incidents. I would have understand if she had said that the first incident (him being at the scene of a bar fight) was a bit trivial since he didn't sustain any injuries. I personally don't know how a incident, which is backed by reliable sources, can be considered "negative". Should I only report the good things that Davido does and leave out the incidents he's been involve in? If I do that, will I not be censoring the article. The last time I check, Wikipedia is not censored, and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The second incident (him allegedly beating up a taxi cab driver) received more coverage than the first incident. Diannaa also told me that the quotations I added to the second incident can be considered a copyright infringement. I told her that I quoted Davido and his publicist, and told her that I can remove the quoted content. I only provided the quotes to add neutrality to the article. If I omitted their quotes and what they said, the article would imply that I am taking sides with the prosecutor and not the defense (sorry, I know this is not a court). The truth is that I am just reporting on the incident, and writing from a neutral point of view. I agreed to remove the quoted materials. I told her that I would be adding the contents back and removing the quotations. She left this reply: "Regarding re-adding the content, once material has been challenged, you shouldn't re-add it unless there's consensus to do so on the talk page. Re-adding material once it's been challenged is (as you probably know) called WP:edit warring, and it's something you can be blocked for. Edit warring to restore contentious material on a biography of a living person (BLP) is definitely something you should not do." She also classified a bar fight as a WP:BLPCRIME. I told her that two or more people fighting in a club is not a crime. It only turns into a crime if something drastic happens. She said that the two incidents gave the article "undue weight". I asked her what that meant, and she said that "What I mean by undue weight is if these two incidents consume 60% of the article it means that these incidents is what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper. Will these two incidents still be considered noteworthy and remarkable five years from now? Ten years from now?". I disagree with her statements here. Anyone who knows Davido know him to be a young musician whose father is rich. The controversial incident section I added doesn't undermine what he's known for. The controversial section makes up 60 percent (a percentage Diannaa came up with) of the article because of the extensive quotation I added; the section is also long because of the significant amount of coverage the incident garnered. If I really take the time to write the second incident, it will be notable enough to have a separate article. I only summarized the incident. You guys can read the rest of my response here. After asking her for a response, she left this:


  • The section "Controversial incidents" was 600 words on a thousand word article (60 per cent of the total article!), giving these two incidents undue weight. What I mean by undue weight is that when these incidents the article is not balanced and neutral, and gives the impression that these incidents are what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper.
  • The fact that other biographies contain BLP violations is no reason to include them here.
  • The fact that you're able to source negative content on a living person does not mean it automatically qualifies for inclusion in their article.
  • We don't base content decisions, especially in our BLPs, on what would be "fair" to the real world persons involved. We do however especially with our BLPs, strive to avoid doing real-world harm to living persons.
  • Material that's been challenged, especially contentious negative information on a BLP, should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page.

I am going to dissect this one by one because I totally disagree with this. This is Diannaa's reason why the section (without the quotations) cannot be added back to the article. My Response for the first bullet: Once the quotations are remove from the section, the section will not make up 60 percent of the article, and thus will not give these incidents undue weight. Second bullet: That's true, but the fact that other biographies contain BLP violations means that they must be dealt with as well. One cannot deal with others and spare others. Third bullet: Again, how is sourcing factual content about a person "negative"? If this is the case, no BLP article on Wikipedia should have anything controversial involve in it. It should all be sugar coated and one dimensional. Fourth bullet: I don't understand everything she said. I did understand her last sentence (which sounds like something a core fan of someone would say). How is adding factual things that someone was involved in harming them? Fifth bullet: Again, I have proven that the information I added is factual. Saying something is "negative" just because you don't want to see it there is a poor excuse. First Diannaa said that the content was poorly sourced. When I told her that the sources are notable newspapers in Nigeria, she changed her comment to "undue weight". She finally said something that I agree with in the last part of the fifth bullet. In her own words, "should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page." This means that the content can be re-added if a consensus is reach on the talk page. Well, I almost single handedly contributed to the article. If you check the article's page information, you'll see that I wrote majority of the article. The user who created the article didn't do much. I am huge fan of Davido, and if it wasn't for me, this article won't be where it is today. No other editor who have contributed to the article is commenting on the talk page. I don't think a consensus will ever get reach if the discussion stays on the article's talk page. I decided to bring this to a noticeboard because I disagree with Diannaa's stance on the situation. I also felt that we weren't able to resolve our differences on the article's talk page. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a content dispute: are you asking for administrative action? Please remember that you don't own the article, and that when an editor makes a good-faith objection on BLP grounds, it's not appropriate to try to resolve the issue through a complaint on ANI. I'd suggest reading WP:BLP and in particular WP:BLPCRIME, which specifically advises against including such allegations unless a conviction is secured. Comparing Davido's celebrity to Jackson is a stretch, and the Jackson allegations were of a completely different order of magnitude. Please consider WP:3O, WP:BLPN or WP:DR. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I am asking for administrative action. I know that I don't own the article, I have only contributed significantly to it. I already read WP:BLP and I don't see how the contents I added violates the BLP policy. If this is in the wrong space, let me move my comments to WP:BLPN. I thought this was where I could get things resolved. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So you are asking for administrative sanctions against Dianaa because she disagrees with you? ("I decided to bring this to a noticeboard because I disagree with Diannaa's stance on the situation"). I strongly advise you to take this to BLPN for other opinions, since that is what you seem to want. This is the wrong forum. There is no edit war, and you and Dianaa have been civil to each other throughout your discussion.Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No, please do not misunderstand me. Dianna's work to Wikipedia cannot be overstated. I can never ask for such a thing man. God knows that she does a GREAT job. I only want someone to look into what I'm saying. Check the sources I referenced, and make a conclusion. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I really thought that this would be simple. The only reason why I disagree with Diannaa's decision was because she believes that the sources I cited were "poor", and that the content violates the BLP policy. If someone tells me that the first incident is trivial, I might understand. As for the second incident, there are too many sources. In addition to the three sources I cited, I was able to find 4 more reliable sources. There are too many reliable sources to just dismiss the incident and not include it in the article. I hope I was able to clarify things. I can't come here and disrespect administrators. I understand the severity of what you do here. This simple matter doesn't have to get so complex. Versace1608 (Talk) 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Versace, ANI is not for content issues. When you disagree with someone's "stance", that's immediately the realm of dispute resolution. When someone tells you in a BLP that the sources are "poor", then your first step is always WP:BLPN. At the same time, it's your role to go find better sources. However, even if you had the best-sourced material, discussion on the article talkpage might actually determine that the information should not be in the article anyway - possibly because of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE or a dozen other reasons. Remember: at times, consensus seems to trump verifiability :-) There is nothing here that requires admin intervention because we don't deal in content, and as long as you don't re-add poorly source material into a BLP, none of us have to act :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me add: "controversy" sections should typically be TINY and incredibly well-sourced the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone convince me I shouldn't block this editor?[edit]

So far as I can see, Nasirakram1440 (talk · contribs) (and an IP, possibly his) has been adding copyvio from [120] to Tajik people (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) - the url is to the 2000 version but virtually the same as today's, I went that far back to make sure they weren't copying us. I ran into this user when another editor pointed out Wikipedia:Long-term abuseLysozym which was some sort of complaint about User:Lysozym - no big deal, just said "This user delibrately removes parts of "Tajik People" on Wikipedia. Initial claims were that some parts of the article is not backed by source, after providing credible sources the user still removes list of well known tajik people and parts of this article. I think he has some sort of political agenda and trying to hide the facts. Kindly take appropriate actions regarding this user. Thank you." I've deleted it as an attack page and told him to come to ANI if he has complaints. I warned him about copyvio and he posted to my talk page User talk:Dougweller#What do you think? denying it is copyvio and saying he has two sources (one.[121], clearly failing WP:RS which I don't follow as it is clearly copy and paste from the afghan-network.net website. Despite my warnings that I would block himn he has added the copyright material again. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The two sources i provided to Dougweller are as follows. 1: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=QdXpUNfNANYC&pg=PA139&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false 2: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=mC9RsIYy8m8C&pg=PA344&dq=tajiks+of+afghanistan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXBFU7SpO4b27AbSkYC4Dw&safe=on&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tajiks%20of%20afghanistan&f=false

Dougweller states that it has been taken from [122] which is completely incorrect. As you all can see it has been taken from these two sources. Please open the sources i provided and look at it for yourself and decide. Dougweller keeps on deleting parts of "Tajik People", Sometimes a list of Tajiks from the page without any reason. Please refer to view history of the page for this. I don't know why he is doing this. Now he is trying to block me. I have engaged in talk with him and he seems to provide no logical reason for it nor according to wikipedia rules. My request to admins is please take appropriate measures in this regard and all these acts from Dougweller seems to indicate an act of censorship and vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirakram1440 (talkcontribs) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

*Thumbs down, continues munching on bread*. It's almost like the dude's not even trying to be convincing. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure whether the book (where I found a version claiming to be from 2000) or the website had it first but they both pre-date us and both claim copyright. Could this be a case of Nasirakram1440 not understaning copyright? Unless I'm missing something they've not had copyright properly explained to them - there's a buried noticed on their page but I suspect they may not even be aware of it's importance given their later comments. It appears to me that they don't claim that it's not a copyright violation but rather claim the book didn't copy the website which is a quite different thing. No where do I see any indication that this user even knows about copyright or that it has been explained to them or am I missing something? @Nasirakram1440: - I suggest you go and read WP:COPYPASTE to understand what the problem is here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Nasirakram1440, from a legal point of view there is actually no difference between copying a text from a book or a website. The problem is that you cannot simply take any text that has been published before and insert it here word by word at Wikipedia under Wikipedia's free licences. Only the original authors may republish their texts under such licences, but neither you nor anyone else must copy and paste their work here. There is a big difference between using a book as a source to proof your own writings in a Wikipedia article and simply copying the original texts that others have written. As Dpmuk wrote, this is explained in WP:COPYPASTE. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Nasirakram1440: 1) Do not "copy & paste". 2) Solve the issue(s) on talk page/discussion. --Zyma (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think Nasirakram1440 pasted anything, actually, but copied the book rather than the website. Their text has a typo whereby "the bulk of Afghanistan's educated elite" has become "the build of Afghanistan's educated elite", (which doesn't make any sense). This suggests they typed the text by hand from the Google scan of the book, or indeed from the print book itself, rather than copypaste it from the website. Doug, assuming as much good faith as possible, I suppose they may have been confused when you said it had been copied from a website that they may not even have seen. Now that Dpmuk has taken their copyright education in hand, and they have also been warned about edit warring, you might as well hold off with the block. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Threats being issued by a user[edit]

Princessruby has issued a threat against me, saying they will "be compelled to play around with the pages that u made...i.e like rafe fernandez, theresa donovan n etc. So, this is my last warning to you." I issued Ruby numerous warnings because a page of creation she's been editing has copyrighted, or suspected copyright material as a copy and paste move from the source I provide]]. And the template states only an ADMIN can remove the template once they have been looked over. Obviously, this user does not understand Wiki policies on such things. This user has continued to add fancruft edits to several articles about soap characters, and edits that defy the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystalball. The template clearly states: "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent", something which Ruby is not. And to continually remove the template and re-write the section, according to the template is against the rules, as far as I am assuming. And them issuing a threat like they have is simply NOT acceptable at all. To say they're going to vandalise pages that I have worked on providing original material, and writing original thesis' of story lines, etc. is unacceptable. And I hope the Admins of this website are able to look into this user's actions and see how problematic they potentially are. I understand this user's edits are in good faith, but going against policies is just unacceptable. And I have not been the only one to issue warnings to this user, and they continue to ignore them. livelikemusic my talk page! 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ben Rogers (Days of Our Lives) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for reference.--v/r - TP 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've reviewed the article and the page you say it's ripped from and frankly I just don't see the copyright violation. It isn't even close paraphrasing. I think you owe Princessruby an apology. On the converse, threatening to disrupt the project to settle a score is not appropriate either. Princessruby owes the rest of us an apology.--v/r - TP 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Persistent BLP violation: accusation of attempted murder[edit]

OP has decided to extend WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting indefinite block for 158.182.66.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP 158.182.66.71 has been repeatedly adding an unsourced accusation of attempted murder to Alexian Lien beating and Talk:Alexian Lien beating. The IP was blocked by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) at AIV for these edits, but as soon as the block expired, 158.182.66.71 was back with more of the same. But this time a block was declined on AIV. Darkwind (talk · contribs) wrote: "This appears to be a good-faith effort to improve the article, and I suggest working with this anonymous editor accordingly. If that fails, please take to ANI."

After having been warned repeatedly regarding the policies of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOR, and then having been blocked for it, coming back and beating the same dead horse is not in any way "a good-faith effort to improve the article". All of the edits from 158.182.66.71 to the Alexian Lien beating article from 6 February 2014 until now push the same unsourced POV and they have shown no sign of getting the point or a willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations of murder since the last block expired.--v/r - TP 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here. It's an improvement (kind of) that it's on the talk page, though the BLP policy makes no such exception, per WP:BLPTALK. And this and this edit-warring in the article are the same unsourced POV pushing and defamation of a living person that he was blocked for.

Per previous discussions and previous consensus, there is not one reputable, published source that thinks the victim of this beating should be charged with any crime, not even an op-ed. It's entirely a forum opinion, and most likely the work of trolls at that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The diffs you've presented do not say that he murdered anyone. And you're misunderstanding BLPTALK. We routinely discuss negative information about living persons on talk pages. Either to convince someone to quit adding it, or to develop a consensus to include it. I don't see that diff as so outside the norm as to block them for it.--v/r - TP 19:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's attempted murder, not murder. I never said murder, I said attempted murder. The IP is accusing Lien of attempted murder, not murder. An unsourced accusation of attempted murder is the defamation we are talking about. I think we're hung up on an irrelevant bit of confusion. The unsourced defamation is quite clear, as far as I can see.

I believe I'm right about BLPTALK. There is no negative information to discuss. There is not a single source which has presented any negative information such as criminal charges against Lien. The only negative information about the victim here comes from the IP's imagination. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The only one being caught up on atempted murder versus murder is you. I haven't cared in the slightest. And no, the editor has not made any accusations of attempted murder since the block expired. Your diffs above do not show that. And yes, there are reliable sources which make the claim that Alexian Lien should stand trial for murder and it took me 2 minutes on Google to find them: [123][124][125][126].--v/r - TP 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it says I think the name of the article should be changed to "attempted murder of Edwin Mieses". How is that not an accusation of attempted murder against Lien?

The links you provided are not reliable sources. For example, the "attempted murder" claim here is from an anonymous commenter. No credible source has made this accusation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SMH - Editors are allowed to discuss editorial changes on talk pages. WP:BLPTALK says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." If the idea is resoundingly rejected (or has been before), it can be removed from the page. But proposing a move is not a BLP violation. Such a strict reading of WP:BLP would stifle any controversial discussion of a subject at all and give us an entirely whitewashed encyclopedia. You couldn't even criticize whitewashing because doing so would be a BLP violation. No, you're overreacting here. And about that source, how do you get an anonymous commenter from that? The title of the article is "Arrest Alexian Lien for Attempted Vehicular Manslaughter", it is published by the Salem News from Salem, Oregon, and written by Tim King. Sure, it's an Op-Ed piece, but that just means that you attribute it in the author's voice and not Wikipedia's.--v/r - TP 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I'm convinced the IP is here for no reason other than to violate the BLP policy, I'm going to let it go. Give him enough rope, and he will earn a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably for the best. He's obviously got a POV and is here to right great wrongs.--v/r - TP 22:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:B!ttu[edit]

The user was found to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Indefinitely blocked along with a couple of socks, promotional userpage deleted. All the work of Atama and Yngvadottir. Bishonen | talk 01:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:B!ttu moved his userpage, and then moved it into the main namespace. I'm not sure where to leave messages, but he's also been removing AfD and db-person templates from the new page: Kang Jun Ho. I'd like an admin to investigate and take appropriate action, probably including fixing the moved pages and redirects, and probably also imposing a temporary block. I'll put the appropriate ANI notices on his talk page and some moved pages as well, to be sure the message gets through the system. --Slashme (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: User:Yngvadottir has stepped in with admirable restraint and a very suitable response. Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the user has decided not to accept my solution; the article about himself is now at User:Kang Jun Ho, but he has twice removed the template identifying it as a user page, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion. He also appears to be using two accounts (B!ttu as well as Kang Jun Ho, to which he was renamed last month), further confusing the picture. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty confusing. I think what happened is that B!ttu's account was created on April 30, 2013. The account was then renamed to Kang Jun Ho following this request at CHUS/Simple, which was done by Xeno. But then I see the user B!ttu being "automatically created" about 4 hours after that rename occurred, which I suspect was the editor creating a new account with the old B!ttu name (that's the only scenario that I can think of that explains what I see in logs). They've edited under that extra account since then. To top all of this off, Kang Jun Ho created another account called Kangjunho.
I'll also note, all of this bizarre behavior has been done with the singular goal of self-promotion. I see no action done by any of these accounts that is in any way constructive to Wikipedia. This seems to be nothing but a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:SPAM. The best course of action is probably to block Kang Jun Ho as an advertising-only account (self-advertising) and per WP:NOTHERE, and block the other two accounts as sockpuppets. -- Atama 22:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree: despite very reasonable approaches, this user doesn't seem to be interested in changing his behaviour, so your suggestions make perfect sense. --Slashme (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see this edit - I have left two warnings about this kind of behaviour. Three users have already been involved in replacing tags that have been removed by Kang Jun Ho. The user needs to be blocked now. --Slashme (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He's been putting {{edit semi-protected}} on the pages, apparently wanting semi-protection.--Auric talk 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He's not going to be doing it any longer. I've done exactly what I suggested above. I've blocked Kang Jun Ho indefinitely for self-advertising, and blocked the others as sockpuppets. -- Atama 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mosfetfaser[edit]

User:Mosfetfaser

Quite like the "big phoney" guy in the Family Guy episode The Kiss Seen Around the World, this user is using his talk space to bring up how I misused Wikipedia over 2 years ago, titling this section as a direct attack on me. He has reverted when I deleted it and warned him over ANI, only for him to have the bare-faced cheek to say I am edit-warring. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I will allow your edit history to speak for itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Almightey_Drill . Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, people saw what I did two years ago. It's gone now. Move on. Why does it affect you? Are you any better abusing your user talk to attack another user and do it again despite warnings? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's hilarious your witch hunt that's two years late: I have 25 deleted edits in 5,800 edits, you have 14 in 780. Your ratio is MUCH worse than mine. Your crusade against me is nothing more than not liking one disambiguating word "also" that I put into an article, and you have not been at all WP:CIVIL about it. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I must be thoroughly terrible, I have over 2,600 deleted edits out of 16,200 or so. I didn't know that's how we judged editors around here, I am ashamed.
@Mosfetfaser: To call someone a vandal for an edit they made more than two years ago is a baseless personal attack, and a pretty serious one. I see that you have chosen to remove it which was proper. Don't put it back. -- Atama 22:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Alex250P meatpuppetry attempts[edit]

Hello there. Recently there have been a rise in new discussions forming around articles in the scope of WP:EE. These were made in regards to challenging consensus made on a small amount of changes to infobox styles. Here is a talk page discussion started by User:Alex250P regarding the removal of birth and death dates from fictional character articles. In this post they reference a forum thread on the entertainment website Digital Spy. I only noticed this yesterday wondering where these new interested users came from. I tracked the thread down and here it is. In this thread a disgruntled User:Alex250p states:

"I've tried to start a debate on Wikipedia about it but if I'm honest I'm unsure. It's so annoying, I used to think they were great pieces of information - but it seems difficult to pass any sort of change with the control that few users have on them articles. If a few of us all messaged the individual, maybe something could happen about it?"

When other posters question how difficult this would be, User:Alex250p reassures "No there isn't really an admin or anything, if everybody has wikipedia profiles and we form some sort of debate on his talk page it could move somewhere?"

Another individual "Mattyboii1995" admits to holding a Wikipedia account and states: "Exactly, it just seemed pointless to have an argument with 1 loser who stays on Wikipedia all day, every day checking that the pages are just how he wants them. His name is 'AnenomeProjectors' if that's who you're thinking of." They are referring to administrator User:AnemoneProjectors. They also go on to offer PM's to other posters to target and change consensus. It could be possible that Alex250p also operates that account and more on Wikipedia itself.Rain the 1 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I find these accusations rather unjust. I can assure you I operate only the one account, and will be prepared to submit IP addresses/passwords, whatever it takes to prove this. Also, I never began the thread on Digital Spy, however I did feel that in order to create a serious talk then more people were need with actual Wiki profiles. Wikipedia is read by everybody, therefore if somebody feels strongly enough to create a thread on it, why not have their say on here? It's a perfectly democratic suggestion. I have not named any administrators in particular and would not go accusing people by name, this "Mattyboii1995" is not me, or a clone account of me and as I've said, will be willing to prove this. I've contributed to articles on Wikipedia for a number of years now, and recently I do feel that the community has changed in terms of discussing changes, and that it has become the word of a few rather than the majority. Is it so wrong to want a say? Alex250P (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alex250P: Please note that our canvassing policy prohibits what you did. You violated 3 of the 4 versions of canvassing. Campaigning by not neutrally asking people to participate, clearly you're asking them to have a particular action taken. Vote-stacking by asking people in an area that you know will support your point of view. Stealth canvassing by making these actions off of Wikipedia. I believe that you've done this in ignorance of policy, but know that if you do this sort of thing again, you can and will be blocked. Consensus is one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, and attempts to circumvent consensus as you've done are strictly forbidden. -- Atama 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Atama, with all due respect, I have to disagree. I have no vested interest in this; I just came along and happened to read it, and was disturbed by your belief that Wikipedia has the right to govern a user's off-wiki freedom of speech. What your interpretation of WP:CANVASS is doing is restricting a user's off-wiki behavior to what Wikipedia finds acceptable. I find that chilling, and completely inappropriate; a user account on Wikipedia does not compel an editor to reliquish his/her right to discuss Wikipedia freely and openly in other venues, and that includes "rallying the troops" if need be. My understanding of the canvassing policy is that it governs on-wiki behavior, and does not explicitly address off-wiki activity. Consequently, I would argue that Alex250p has violated no policy. On the other hand, if the consequences of that discussion come on-wiki, that's another story. --Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you like it or not, Drmargi. It's our guideline. Read it, don't make assumptions.
"Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."
That's a direct quote from the guideline. As I said before, there are 4 different kinds of prohibited canvassing defined by our guideline. The fourth kind, "stealth canvassing", is entirely concerned with an editor's off-wiki activities. Let's put it this way... What an editor does off-wiki makes no difference unless and until it affects Wikipedia. When you recruit people to come to Wikipedia to bolster your POV, that is affecting Wikipedia and circumventing consensus, and is disruptive in the process. That's why our guideline prohibits such practices. -- Atama 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Oglesruins[edit]

Oglesruins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I came across the editor above when an edit war at the article Mexico got them blocked 27 days ago. I noticed today (and reverted) more additions to the same page. The "English" used is unintelligible. i.e "The country finally achieved that his political independence was recognized for.." and "They were lacking national identity and were not understanding they nor were interested..." I think we have a CiR native language problem. So I looked at the editors history and noticed they are blanking things etc... I think we have a classic case of WP:NOTHERE in a few ways. There is no attempt at communication with others over the concerns raised on there talk page or edit summaries explaining anything. They are editwaring over edits like this that add odd English. They are also blanking things as seen here. There are many many edits that have to be reviewed. What is the best course of action here? Do we need someone that speaks Spanish to try to communicate or what? -- Moxy (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Recurrent violation of Civility policy by Jytdog[edit]

Incident report, by LeoRomero (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

I tried to discuss Jytdog's behavior on his User Page, but he deleted my post (diff), then posted on my User Page that I am a troll (diff). This was the text of my request for discussion:

Civility

I agree with you when you say on your User Page that Civility "is crucial for successful interactions among editors trying to write articles ... we have to work together - we have to see and acknowledge each other - to get anything good done ... civility is all about behavior -- it has nothing to do with who you are or what you believe; what matters is what you write, and how you write it. Civility is what makes this ultimate democratic space possible ... The best interactions are characterized by competence and civility ... Of the two, only one is a pillar. Civility. If editors work in a spirit that acknowledges the other's validity and one's own limitedness - if they assume good faith - a consensus can be reached, eventually. Take civility away, and there is no chance."

But I disagree with how you practice what you preach. I refer you to the Wikipedia Policy Page on Civility (shortcut WP:NICE). "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Among other things, WP:NICE says: "Try not to get too intense", " Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy", "Be calm", "don't make snide comments", "don't make personal remarks about editors", "don't be aggressive", "no personal attacks", no "rudeness, insults, name-calling", no "belittling a fellow editor".

I quote back to you verbatim et literatim some recent remarks you'd made to me and to other editors (f.e A1candidate, Khimaris, Nigelj, TimidGuy), not only on our User Talk Pages, but also on the Talk Pages of Articles, where you yourself said they don't belong (diff). I'm certain that if I dig deeper I will find many more examples, but I think these suffice to illustrate my point (I was going to organize them according to the nature of their incivility, but there are so many (38) of them that I had to resort to mere alphabetization): 'Again, you seem very committed to not actually discussing things... strange'; 'because i run out of patience with your behavior'; 'bizarre to me'; 'create nothing but misery for everyone involved'; 'Do you see that?'; 'don't get yourself all worked up'; 'don't torment editors who are following those policies'; 'filled with mountains of bullshit'; 'I have neither time nor desire to pander to your ego here'; 'If you want to learn, ask, don't argue - ask and listen'; 'It is as foolish as'; 'just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego)'; 'makes you look less than credible'; 'Maybe this is some kind of sport for you'; 'not a happy sign to me of things to come should you choose to continue working on WP'; 'profoundly un-Wikipedian behavior'; 'Running to no less than two drama boards'; 'slow down and breathe'; 'So blech'; 'that is a patience-trying request'; 'that it is your idea - a newbie's idea'; 'the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with'; 'there is a strange inability to read going around'; 'umm'; 'you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia mission'; 'you are going to be miserable here'; 'You are not talking, you are arguing in a legalistic manner.'; 'you are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia'; 'you are showing that you understand none of this'; 'you can hear me, or not! your call, naturally. good luck! '; 'you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus'; 'You don't seem to be aware'; 'you have an ax to grind'; 'you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive'; 'You should know by now'; 'you should know that you pick your battles; good judgement is essential'; 'Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from?'

I would like to discuss with you here why you think that these comments of yours meet Wikipedia's Civility requirements. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • This is the second complaint about an editor that LeoRomero has filed here in the last few days (it was me being complained about before). This looks spurious too. Jytdog has a personally engaged style which I think many newbies and frazzled editors find very welcome. Even from the carefully cherry-picked fragments above I see nothing offensive, but rather some on-point plain speaking: constructive criticism is not uncivil. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)