Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

• 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)[reply]

• Let's can the drama. Shut this thread. Give the guy some space. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
    • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply
      ]
      • "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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

One Month Block Proposal

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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

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)[reply]

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
  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)[reply]

• 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.
  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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Solution

This is about Wikipedia Categories?? Not

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 --

• BHG will ignore Skookum1's category activities. (Given 858 admins and 123,503 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)[reply]

@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)[reply

]

• @
  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)[reply
  ]

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

? 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To

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[reply

]

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Which is? (i.e What is "the bulk of the problems")? NE Ent 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Another personal attack from Skookum1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A suggestion

Request

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)[reply]

"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[reply]

endorse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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
  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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Editor User:Viriditas has claimed that a section on Christopher Monckton's political view pertaining to climate change are "promotional", Undue, Coattrack, etc - whatever seems to spring to mind. The section is very well sourced, and the majority of it is quite certainly the opposite of promotional. Monckton - within the limited realm of his influence - is fairly well known for his views on climate science. The article is a BLP, and the material discusses Monckton and his views. Editor Viriditas is simply removing the entire section by fiat. The only discussion that has taken place - over a matter of hours - has been with me. No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided. I've reverted his blanket removal twice, but he/she persists. This is not acceptable - Editor Viriditas has not provided *specific* examples to back up his claims - only blanket statements that - because Monckton is not an expert on climate science, the material should not be in the article - ignoring that the article isn't claiming that he's an expert, it is presenting information relevant to Monckton. A casual scan of the net clearly shows that Monckton is controversial, and fairly widely known for being contrarian on climate change. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words about Monckton's fringe climate change denial views into his biography.[44] I've said on the talk page that this enormous weight is undue and is tantamount to coatrackery and promotion. I then brought the 769 words down to a manageable 163.[45] Instead of receiving thanks and admiration for helping to improve Wikipedia, I've been dragged here instead. Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer. When he's told that he has the burden to justify adding this material, he responds with "I didn't write it", but that doesn't stop him from adding it back in again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words". False on so many levels. First, the material has been in the article for quite some time, I don't know exactly how long, but at least a year or more. I didn't add any of this material to the article. Instead, editor Viriditas is removing this material by fiat - with vague claims of policy violations, but without a single specific. Furthermore, a claim that 769 words is "unprecedented" requires proof - otherwise, it's just noises made to sound important. Monckton's views on climate science are relevant and notable to

Christopher Monckton - the article is not about climate science, it is about Monckton, but editor Viriditas insists that this material about Monckton cannot be included in an article about Monckton. "Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer.". Another complete, total falsehood. Editor Viriditas has not asked a single question in the discussion thus far. I have not 'refused' to answer anything - I have explained why I believe that editor Viriditas has not appropriately provided a valid justification for removal of this material. Generic, vague claims of policy violations are certainly any editor's prerogative - removing well-sourced material by fiat based on those generic claims is not acceptable in a collaborative medium. The tone of editor Viriditas's commentary is disturbing - I've explained my rationale, he's explained his, but no other editors have had an opportunity to discuss the matter. I am accused of 'refusing' to answer questions that have never been tendered. The burden is upon editor Viriditas to provide specifics, not generalities, as justifications for removing well-sourced material that is pertinent to this BLP. I'll thank and extend my admiration to editor Viriditas when he/she collaborates on the article, rather than removing material by fiat. Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

First, the length of time anything has been in an article is not a valid argument for keeping it in the article. I often remove vandalism that's been in place for years. According to your argument, we shouldn't remove it because it's been there for a long time. Do you see a problem with your reasoning? Second, I've explained on the talk page why I removed it, but you refuse to explain why you've added it back in. Instead, you keep refusing to take responsibility. The way Wikipedia works is like this: 1) an editor (in this case myself) finds a problem. There is no time limit on the problem, it may be new or old. 2) The editor uses the talk page to explain the problem, citing policies or guidelines if necessary. 3) The editor attempts to leave the problem for others to handle based on their talk page message, or tries to fix the problem themselves. 4) Other editors may come along to agree or disagree, or there will be silence. So what happened? I left a message on the talk page explaining the problem and then I fixed the problem. You showed up and reverted saying "why did you remove the material"? Well, that's been explained to you many times now, but you keep on adding the material back in while avoiding the burden of proof. If you can't defend adding the material back in, then stop adding it. It doesn't matter how long the problem occurred or how long the content was in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of dissembling claims here is astonishing. NO, my argument is not that it shouldn't be removed because it's been there a long time - I have not said that, you have said it, putting words in my mouth in order to attack me for them. Yes, you explained on the talk page your rationale. However, it is utter crap to suggest that I 'refuse' to explain anything - I've provided (perhaps overly voluminously) my rationale for inclusion, but editor Viriditas keeps saying that I'm refusing to explain myself. Utter crap. "refusing to take responsibility". Again, crap. I've stated my rationale for the material to remain, very clearly. I understand how wikipedia works, the dripping condescension is not necessary; while I have not been here quite as long as you, I have been here a very long time, I have plenty of edits under my belt, and I know an effort to scrub material because another editor doesn't like it, when I see it.

You've warped the record again - you stated your rationale for removal, I replied why I felt your rationale was not adequate - then you removed the material by fiat, ignoring the barely started discussion, and not providing any opportunity for other editors to participate. Not even six hours had passed before you removed the material, even though an objection (clearly detailed) had been provided. I did not "show up and revert", nor did i ever ask "why did you remove the material?" - I provided a direct rebuttal to your claims, then you removed the material by fiat anyway. How is such prevarication even tolerable, for chrissakes? I ask admin to review the discussion, and the timing of the discussion against Viriditas's hasty removal of the material before more than just a single editor had had an opportunity to participate. The material in question pertains specifically and directly to Monckton, the subject of the BLP. It does not violate BLP policies, nor is it given undue weight in consideration of Monckton's (minor) notoriety as a climate change skeptic/denialist/contrarian. Anastrophe (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be looking into a mirror, because the "dissembling claims" appear to be emanating from your own keyboard. To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions or explain why you've added the material back into the article because you didn't add it. You obviously meant to say that you didn't write it, because you've now added it into the article twice. When asked to explain yourself again, you say "it's been there all along". When it is explained to you that "I didn't write it" and "it's been there for a long time" are not adequate nor sufficient arguments to justify your reverts and additions, you respond with "you're putting words in my mouth". Again, wash, rinse, repeat. You have the burden to explain why you keep adding the material. I've already explained why I removed it. Responding with "I didn't write it" and "It's been there a long time" are arguments to avoid. Those who add material have to explain why, regardless of who wrote it originally and irrespective of how long its been in the article. Your responses show a pattern of moving the goalposts, avoiding the burden, and deflecting solving the problem. You've been asked repeatedly why you added the material back into the article. You'll need to use the talk page to explain your rationale. I do not have to explain your reasoning, you do. I hope that's clear. And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now. Either defend your additions or if you can't, stop adding them. It's really that simple. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now." Please show some respect for the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, rather than dismissing their existence, and their contributions, and forging ahead as if this is your encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have defended my rationale clearly and in detail on the talk page. The record is available on the talk page, where other editors will see that not a single one of your claims above is true - it's merely a wall of 'you said this' where I said nothing of the sort. I'm reminded of a character on the show 'The Good Wife' - a politician who had the most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity. Have a good life, Viriditas, I'll let the record speak for itself, and trust that other editors will see right through these ploys. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- the section about Monckton's climate science denial does seem to me to be too long. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. 'Too long' rather depends on the relevance to the subject of the BLP, wouldn't you say? Monckton is decidedly not well-known. However, he is known, and he is notable in one regard for his positions on climate change. His notoriety in that regard has been recent, and controversial. The claim that has been made is that the section is "promotional" (it is patently not, a significant proportion is damning). Another claim is that it gives undue weight to a fringe theory - the problem is, it's not giving article space to a fringe theory, it is describing a number of incidents/conflicts that the subject of the article has been involved in, pursuant to the subject's notoriety for his controversial views on that very subject. The material makes no claim at all that Monckton is an expert on the subject, nor that he is influential, nor that his views are correct - if it did, then the material would most certainly be inappropriate. I agree that the section could use some appropriate editing and cleanup. I disagree that the majority of it - all of which is cited to reliable sources - should just be excised by fiat, and I emphatically disagree that the material violates the policies that editor Viriditas claims - and my detailed rebuttals are on the article talk page if anyone chooses to review the record. Anastrophe (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the section being disagreed about is very long — 30 lines on my good big screen. That certainly looks like undue weight. The proof of the pudding as to how people have behaved is on the talkpage, especially since Anastrophe has claimed that "No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided". That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material. (Per the
  coatrack it looks like at first sight. It's no good claiming that Viriditas has to list particular bits in the section that are violations of particular policies, because no, he really doesn't. Viriditas' shortened version here looks good to me. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

"very long -- 30 lines" - 30 lines is very long and undue weight? I'm very confused by this statement. "That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material." My issue is that very little time passed between Viriditas's statement that he was going to remove the material, and when it was removed. Only two editors, Viriditas and myself, had weighed in. There are quite a few more editors on wikipedia than the two of us, and it's considered reasonable to allow more than a single editor to weigh in as dispositive of consensus. "I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long". Is it really fair to represent what I've written, when derived from an incomplete reading of it? Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD to see what's considered reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply

]

• (Adding.) Also, Anastrophe, do you think you can get away with talking about Viriditas' "infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity" by wrapping it in a cloak of being reminded of a fictional character who had that ability..? You really can't. Please refrain from personal attacks on this board, they don't help your cause. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, my words were intemperate; however, they were in response to editor Viridatis's wholesale distortion of my words, with a string of "you saids" where I clearly did not say the words he/she puts in my mouth - for example, "To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions" - pure, unadulterated fiction, never said it. "When asked to explain yourself again" - pure, unadulterated fiction - editor Viriditas never once actually asked me a single question in the discussion on the talk page, to that point in it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, a content dispute and not an admin issue, but the problem with Viriditas' version is that it doesn't make the rather obvious point that despite his popularity on the climate denial talk circuit, Monckton has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in climate science and his participation in the debate has led to widespread condemnation and even mockery. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. The version I linked to above does do just that, by removing any semblance of his faux scientific opinion and by simply stating that he went on his own personal climate change tour (indicating a personal, not a professional interest), followed by his invitation by Republicans (who jumped the shark on climate change 20 years ago) followed by his coverage in a documentary (criticized by none other than Delingpole himself) concluding with his impersonation of the state of Burma at the climate conference and his subsequent ejection from the event. If that doesn't show he has no qualifications and his participation has led to condemnation and mockery, then I don't know what does. And it only required 163 words to illustrate it, not 769. Bishonen's link differs in that it leaves in his opinion on the science, an opinion I had removed in the diff above. In any event, even if you still disagree, do you believe another 600 words is required? The picture I painted, of a man being thrown out of the UN climate conference for basically crashing the event speaks more to his lack of qualifications and mockery than any long-winded quote ever could. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of the drama seems to stem from the aggressive approach which seems to have been adopted. As far as edits/comments on this noticeboard, edit summaries like "The appeal to editors from the future is a nice touch, but it's used by POV pushers from time immemorial" only inflame the situation, as do the responsive comments like "most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity". Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle, though fortunately there was no 3RR vio. Other than for each user to be advised to avoid editing disruptively, I don't see how further administrative intervention will help (or is otherwise necessary) here. If input is being sought on the content issues (which is what most of this thread seems to be about), wouldn't an article RfC be a more appropriate place to discuss and resolve the underlying issue? Or is the difficulty that each editor expects the other to open the RfC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  While I have been an editor since 2006, I have not been an editor who has resorted to wikipedia's backend machinations to deal with editing I felt was disruptive. This is the first time in those eight years that I've started a formal complaint. Perhaps ANI was not the appropriate venue, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's quite OK. In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive. That said, unless that is preventing the content issue from being determined, it's probably less taxing to focus on having the underlying content issue determined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson

's block of him in August 2013. James' long block notice was admirable in giving an established user the courtesy of personally written comments, and in explaining very clearly how he had to change in order to get off the road to an indefinite block that his edit warring habits were heading for. (I was only one of the people who wrote to James to thank him for going to so much trouble, and for blocking in a respectful way.) Ncmvocalist, have you realized that there is no question of edit warring by Viriditas in this case? He removed a section of long standing (most admins don't call that a "revert"), and then reverted Antistrophe's restoration of it once. Antistrophe reverted twice, and Viriditas then left Antistrophe's restored long section in place, placing an "undue weight" tag on the section. Those seem to me the actions of a user who has learned to change his stripes as far as edit warring is concerned.

While I haven't really followed Viriditas' editing since James' block, I've checked it out a little after reading Nmvocalist's post (which I found quite concerning). These are my results: Viriditas has not been blocked again since JamesBWatson's August—November block. A read of Viriditas' talkpage history doesn't show any warnings concerning edit warring. (I do see a pretty recent ANI complaint mentioned here, unfortunately by a user who doesn't believe in permanent links, and I can't find the ANI thread. I do vaguely remember it, though, and I think it concerned incivility, not edit warring.) Nmvocalist, it's discouraging and retrograde when people insist on reminding those who has moved on of old sins, and wanting those old sins be taken into account. The comment "In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive" is extraordinary. It's blurry from all the negatives cancelling each other out, so I have to ask: Did you mean to suggest that this disagreement is about edit warring after all? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? That sanctions are never to be lived down? And when you refer in general to "the" edit warring — "Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle [what..?], though fortunately there was no 3RR vio" — whose edit warring are you talking about? You probably don't mean to be misleading, but the implication that there nearly was a 3RR violation is just that, misleading. Insofar as Viriditas is concerned, there wasn't even a 1RR vio. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Note. I've just noticed Collect has removed the long section and replaced it with his own short version, which seems to me much less reader-friendly and informative (or, even, less encyclopedic) than Viriditas' version, especially because of Collect's abrupt in medias res beginning and the absence of any framing of the reception/impact of Monckton's climate change views. I suppose it's a general law of Wikipedia that style and structure are bound to be the victims of content disagreements. :-( All the worse for our readers. Anyway, this is altogether pretty depressing. I'm done. Sorry for the TLDR and good night. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to "Note' The section was absolutely unwieldy and crufty. I reduced it to the basic information about Monckton's views, which reasonably belongs in the BLP. I sought, per

WP:CONSENSUS to create a compromise position between removal and massive "stuff" of marginal relationship to a proper biography. If his positions are clearly stated in the BLP, I fail to see why we need a sledgehammer to point out how evil the person is, especially since his positions are apparently quite moderate. I would also state the new section is shorter and more easily understood than the long version was. Cheers -- my intent was to reach a compromise while following Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Collect (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I started from scratch using the reliable sources about Monckton's words -- I did not think to use another version when it was easier to make sure my version accurately reflected the sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to get involved in this issue, but since my block in August of last year has been mentioned, I will just say that I agree with

• JamesBWatson
  for framing an appropriately/insufficiently "long block notice" at the time, that was certainly not my intention and I apologise. The underlying concern raised from this thread seemed to me to be a concern about disruptive editing. I wasn't suggesting that any particular user was solely to blame for any of this, be it the inappropriate comments/edit-summaries on this noticeboard, or the series of reverts concerning one part of the article. That said, it seems to me the complaint was sparked by a single area of content being changed multiple times within a short space of time while there is clearly a dispute about changing the content.
• Yes, it was good that Viriditas started a discussion first about his concerns with the article and there was not a violation, but if a bold edit is not accepted after it was live for 9 minutes, what was the need to reinstate the bold edit in the 5 minutes that followed? Surely the tag could have been placed at that point itself, particularly where just one other user has participated in the discussion about the bold change and the dispute remains. Similarly, if a bold edit citing UNDUE and FRINGE was reinstated, was there a need to revert the edit within the 12 minutes after that? Surely outside input could have been sought at that point, and it might be better to err on the side of caution. The last part of the series was Collect's subsequent edit, but Bishonen, you've now noted that and I suppose he's responded with his reason for making the edit. It's not misleading at all to say there was no vio of 3RR (the bright line of edit warring) and that an otherwise standard content dispute on the article has become a spectacle because of the more aggressive approach taken in this case.
• The next question: why would an editor since 2006 perceive such a serious level of disruptive editing in relation to Viriditas from the above series of events that he feels a need to use administrative mechanisms which (he says) he has not otherwise resorted to using during his 8 years at Wikipedia? I think it's a stretch to say that the 'old sins', particularly the consequence of the most recent of them, played no part in the decision to come here. As you and JamesBWatson apparently suggest, I could be wrong.
• To elaborate, when JamesBWatson referred to Viriditas having problems dealing effectively with other editors with whom he had disagreements, or appearing "to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes [his] position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against [him] must have ulterior motives", I assumed that would extend to implicit accusations of POV pushing (or a tendentious IDHT editing-approach). I'd leave both of you (JamesBWatson and Bishonen) with the following to consider: do either of you think that the edit summary Viriditas used here was appropriate, particularly where it was directed to the complainant who is otherwise in a good faith content dispute? Or are you seeing clear and immediately obvious evidence of POV pushing tactics by the complainant?
• My turn to say sorry for the TLDR also in response to all those questions, and if the concern is maintained that I have said something which is still "extraordinarily" inappropriate, please let me know which portions so that I can strike these out accordingly. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Believe it or not, I'm staying out of this one, on the content issue. However Viriditas's comment on the RfC below is clear indication he his not interested in consensus or the
  WP:TE#Righting Great Wrongs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC so we can focus on preferred versions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it is only a few days since

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.[60] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". --

talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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

talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[61]. 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)[reply]

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. --

talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

(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

Further comment: This edit summary [62] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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..., 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[63]. 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 [64]

.

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

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)[reply

]

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" [65] and states that users like

TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you thought of looking at the diff, and changing things back?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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 - [70] by Soman again - [71] and again [72] - reverts Pharos [73] 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)[reply]

Passover

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)[reply]

User in question is

Please point to an example of OR or an unsourced edit that I have made to that article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say unsourced content. The sources you are using are not MEDRS. I have already pointed out on the talk page where the OR from today was. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out that there are numerous examples of POV in the article that you don't seem to be complaining about. For example an interview with the head of the CDC can apparently be cited, but an article published in the journal of the Royal College of Physicians apparently isn't an RS. A statement by the WHO that the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation has not been demonstrated is more prominent than a study showing that they're AT LEAST as effective as the nicotine patches the WHO say we should use instead. Claims that e-cigs could lead to tobacco use are highlighted despite all the evidence, including the CDC's own research, showing exactly the opposite. Stuffing an article with hysterical scaremongering is not NPOV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already raised months ago on the talk page, Sources like the CDC and WHO are not wrong simply because you disagree with them. You cannot take primary sources and other unreliable sources and oppose such sources. This was clearly pointed out to you by several editors on the talk page at the time. Lesion 19:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is clearly stated in

WP:MEDRS a position statement from the CDC or WHO claiming, for example, that e-cigs are a gateway to smoking is less authoritative than actual medical evidence showing that they're not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You cannot use a chain of primary sources and unreliable sources to overrule mainstream sources like WHO and CDC. Lesion 19:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would only be an issue if either CDC or WHO had released a secondary source showing that e-cigs are leading to a reduced rate of smoking cessation. They haven't, so what's your problem?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This appears to be a routine content dispute between two editors, and the 'POV pushing' as OP called has a relevant talk page discussion (which hasn't been utilized it appears). There hasn't been any personal attacks as of yet, only a single editor disagreeing with another single editor. I'm not seeing the original research, as the claims are cited with a reliable source. Also, OP see
  WP:BOOMERANG OP, you've been editwarring as well. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have not been edit warring. First please look up what edit warring is defined as, and then please redact that statement. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not. See the

WP:3RR. You are not automatically entitled to three reverts, it's only at the third that you get a temp block. You can edit war with only two. Tutelary (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not edit warring to revert a controversial change. I was not the only editor to revert said change either. You do not understand the term. Lesion 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I was not the only editor to restore it. The other editor who reverted it did so for an invalid reason, i.e. the file format of the source.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please review the version history of the article. User is only making one-sided edits to this article, using unreliable sources. Against consensus, check how many editors oppose this behavior in the history of the talk page. Regards, Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy. Two editors oppose my edits on the talk page; one supports them. That makes two and two, so I'm hardly editing against consensus. You, on the other hand, don't seem to like talk page discussions much. You don't even have a talk page. Now, please explain why Smoking in England - an NHS-funded tobacco control group - is an "unreliable source" when the subject is, erm, smoking in England.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the talk page. There is clear consensus against your editing. Lesion 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus against some of my edits, which are no longer in the article. That doesn't mean there's a consensus against all my edits. The history shows that I'm quite happy to seek a consensus and have been involved in building several; I don't just revert things with misleading (or absent) edit summaries and avoid talk page discussions. The edit that seems to have sparked you off is in the section entitled "Smoking cessation" and it's sourced from a review into smoking cessation carried out by a government-funded smoking cessation group. To call that OR or POV is simply wrong. Nor is it being used to debunk a secondary source, which would be against

WP:MEDRS, because there aren't any secondary sources that contradict it. Frankly I don't see what your problem with it is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You have not made a single neutral edit to the article in months of history. The only reason you have got away with it is because you are aggressive at edit warring when editors revert your POV edits, shouting down anyone who disagrees with you. Your arguments are circular and most editors have simply lost interest. You do not get to dictate to others that an article should be twisted away from the mainstream view simply because you shout louder than everyone else. Lesion 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think citing any paper that doesn't say e-cigs kill babies is a POV edit. In fact there are no actual research papers showing that e-cigs damage health, cause addiction or lead to smoking, and plenty that contradict those claims. So what's the mainstream view? Position statements and FAQs do not, as made very clear by

WP:MEDRS, negate actual evidence. You seem to be arguing that just because a FAQ (it is not a secondary source) released by the WHO say e-cigs haven't been proven to help smoking cessation, its POV to mention any of the quite extensive research showing that they do. That isn't what NPOV means. Anyway, I did link a study claiming that e-cigs make smokers less likely to quit. Someone deleted it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose Per Tutelary. FergusM1970 does not seem to have engaged in abusive editing deserving a ban. The case has not been made. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was closed without any comment from the administrator community by

(edit conflict)If an editor feels I misjudged the situation based on the content of the discussion then reverting the closure is entirely appropriate. NE Ent 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Has consistently used primary sources and attempted to remove the position of major international organizations.
  talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Those who continually claim that the World Health Organization is not a reliable source should not be editing. [74]

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The link provided does not supports the assertion. Following that link shows that they don't feel a source [75] which includes the disclaimers The safety of ENDS has not been scientifically demonstrated. The potential risks they pose for the health of users remain undetermined. may not a good basis on which to base a Wikipedia article. NE Ent 17:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per go look at the talk page. Talk:Electronic_cigarette#PPT NE Ent 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)gus h[reply]
• Support topic ban per
  original research where he believes his arguments trump those of the reliable sources, and an inability or unwillingness to accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. He's already been blocked for edit-warring by Mark Arsten, was subsequently warned again for edit-warring by EdJohnston, and then was most recently blocked for a week by NuclearWarfare for tendentious editing. After the block was over he went right back to the article to continue the same tendentious editing. That's enough. Zad68 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the heads up about this thread Zad. I support the topic ban, but I am also blocking for a month. Literally nothing has gotten better since I instituted a block at the beginning of the month. NW (Talk) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible tag team on Electronic cigarette

Moved from bottom of page NE Ent 14:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Yesterday I added a mention of a study on smoking prevalence to the

You came here over [76] showing that you did not want to use "smoking" with regard to electronic "cigarettes"? And [77] which shows you seeking to add material that they may actually reduce use of cigarettes? Looks like a routine content issue and one for which an RfC is far better than a drama board incident report, alas. Start an RfC which you quite likely would prevail on, rather than coming here. Or try

WP:DRN. If I had the power, I likely would shut this board down as having exceeded any reasonable drama to usefulness ratio. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue is that you were using a primary source published in the form of a ppt as per [78]

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's already been pointed out to Jmh649 at Talk:Electronic_cigarette#PPT by another editor (e.g. Kim D. Petersen) that a.) the PowerPoint format is an irrelevant red-herring, and b.) the linked article is clearly a secondary source. Whether its a reliable secondary source is, of course, subject to consensus discussion on the article talk page. NE Ent 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent it might do well to review what is and isn't a secondary source with respect to medicine. I have provided a link on the talk page you mention.

Can you please tell us where

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources

for further material, and here secondary sources are defined as (paraphrased): built from primary sources (here several statistics and surveys), significantly seperated (the statistics/surveys are not collected by the authors), provides analysis/interpretation/commentary on primary sources (that is what the text we quote does).

I think you make the mistake of thinking that this section in

WP:MEDRS only accepts peer-reviewed (marked as)"review" articles as being secondary sources. While this interpretation can be made by consensus in specific areas, it is not one that is supported by the generic primary/secondary/tertiary source definition. --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In general, secondary sources are self-described as review articles or meta-analysis.[79]

That is very nice, and this is indeed self-described as such[80] (summary and analysis of statistical material and surveys relevant to the topic area). --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Wouldn't of usually brought this here, however following full protection by User:FreeRangeFrog i feel this needs reviewed. There has been a short edit war on the page in the time frame of two hours. This was between two users only User:Jmorrison230582 and User:Truth, reality and justice. Truth, reality and justice added material six times[81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] and JM reverted six times. There has been some edit warring between the two in previous days that can be seen from history. No proper warnings were given by User:Jmorrison230582 to Truth, reality and justice during this period. Whilst i feel the information shouldn't of been included at all, this is clearly an edit war, or removal of BLP vandalism in JM eyes which he states means he is excempt from 3RR. This is debatable but not why I'm raising this here.

The full protection was proposed here and here. User:FreeRangeFrog fully protected saying he felt full protection was merited Yes it does, full protection actually since everyone is autoconfirmed and I'd rather do that than block accounts. Now I feel that if an edit war is between two editors, then action should be taken against one or both editors not causing collateral damage on a page because of a dispute. If the dispute was between more than two editors then I wouldn't be disagreeing with the protection. Both editors should of been warned or blocked and then if continued page protected, our own policy states Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. Im sorry if I'm wrong for bringing the protection here.Blethering Scot 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I Say proper warning I mean templates warnings and not at increasing level that usually would or should be given. I would actually state the first is advice, the [second which is more of a warning doesn't link to edit warring or explain the consequences of doing so. The final message is a clear warning but is only given after JM's six revert when dispute has calmed.Blethering Scot 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If another sysop wants to remove the protection and block Truth, reality and justice then fine. I was trying to avoid blocking someone with a clear block log and a valid point as to the inclusion of negative information in a biography but going about it in the wrong way. I would advise against blocking Jmorrison230582 though, because their reverts fall into the 3RR exception for BLPs. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, judgement of the admin, and I'm fine with the full-protect to actually get people TALKING on that article talkpage. Blocks are the LAST resort, not the first  the panda  ₯’ 22:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:FreeRangeFrog User:DangerousPanda. Can you address the full protection policy which again states: Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.'My concern here is your protection not these editors.Blethering Scot 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're smart enough to know that "may be better" does not mean "must always". Frog made the right call. There's ways to request edits to a full-protected page  the panda  ₯’ 22:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im also smart enough to know that this wasn't what the policy was intended for, this is clearly a poor decision. I can see no reason why this case differs from many others and couldn't of been dealt with in the line of the main spirit of that policy, all i see is an admin who doesn't like blocking or warning strongly users and would rather protect than push users to discuss. Thats problematic to me.Blethering Scot 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other point is they weren't encouraged to discuss or warned, the protection was the first action by FreeRangeFrog. This is clearly a case of Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users. This is not a widespread dispute, I've been advised by other admins like User:Bbb23 that in cases like these the editors should be dealt with not the page and this seems in line with our own policy. BB23 actually has said to me that full protection seems problematic as it punishes other users., this comment was in relation to a dispute between just two editors.Blethering Scot 22:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what your desired outcome is here, unprotect the page so that edit warring can continue and one party be blocked (as mentioned Jmorrison230582 would be exempt per

WP:BLPCRIME)? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Kelapstick I'm not necessarily asking either be blocked specifically or at all at this stage, i disagree that six reverts where necessary without formal escalation but thats bye the bye. Im asking that normal editors aren't punished for a limited dispute and editors properly advised against edit warring. If that continues then the offending party should be blocked. Sometimes warning and giving the stick is better than punitively punishing other users. Yes i fell page should be unprotected as I feel it was done way too quickly, without other remedies being taken which is to me against the spirit if clearly not the letter of policy.Blethering Scot 23:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being that we're all volunteers, you can suggest a response by admins, you can offer a good argument (which you've done) but you can't dictate to admins what they should or shouldn't do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should be allowed some leeway to use their best judgement to quell a problem in any particular circumstance, so I see no reason for FRF's action to be overturned. I'm also somewhat at a loss to understand Blethering Scot's concern, since he's only edited the article in question twice, and the latest of those was in 2013. Is the protection preventing him from improving the article in some way that couldn't be accomplished by means of an edit request? BMK (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask that admins justify there decisions against policy, that is reasonable. I feel the protection wasn't and isn't justified, i feel the editors should both be properly warned and if they continue blocked. There is no evidence they will continue after that, they should have been given the stick proper warnings and see if they discuss. Protecting the page is a punishment to all users not the ones who were edit warring.Blethering Scot 23:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK i have no wish to edit the page, I have a wish to see that normal editors aren't punished for a dispute solely between two editors, i also see no proper warnings or notices to discuss. Give the editors the stick by warning and if they break it block the hell out of them, don't punish normal users. I also feel admins are interpreting that policy against its clear spirit, is that something that needs properly discussed to see if policy needs tightened. Personally I think so, but thats for another time of day. I cant argue that the policy doesn't allow give and take, I can argue that not all reasonable attempts were completed before doing so. I feel FreeRangeFrog jumped the gun.Blethering Scot 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's address the problem when a user who does want to access the page is prevented from doing so, and (for whatever reason - the complexity of the changes desired, perhaps) can't do so with an edit request. Purely hypothetical concerns seem unnecessary to clog up ANI with. BMK (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your first step was to address the admin in question directly - not optional. If they did not provide good reason as per

WP:RFUP. However, you went all the way to the community level instead, and once consensus forms here, you're no longer able to take it back to the other levels  the panda  ₯’ 23:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)\[reply

]

Sorry no he made it clear he felt he made correct decision, I clearly disagree, given that he ignored my already posted objection at

WP:RFPP this is the correct place to bring.Blethering Scot 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User:DangerousPanda what is wrong with both users being warned not to edit war formally, what is wrong with giving them the stick to do so, if they continue then they clearly are doing wrong. The page is collateral damage of a limited dispute. I see no proper attempts at limiting the dispute without punishing normal editors. Also please don't preach to me about boards, I'm not a new editor and am hardly interested in taking to other boards, I've made my point and you clearly disagree. I don't like seeing normal hard working editors punished for a clearly limited dispute. The stick is far better.Blethering Scot 23:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "punishment"? Nobody is being "punished". Can you show me a link to some form of punishment? You'll note: I'm fully aware of your skills and tenure - it's something I respect about you. That's one of the reasons I'm wondering why you brought such a thing here, and called it "punishment" - you're smarter than that. You're also typically wise enough to know when you went a bit overboard and back away, but apparently not today  the panda  ₯’ 23:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing editors who haven't done anything wrong from editing a page is punishment, especially when its limited in dispute. I usually wouldn't bring here, i don't really want to see either editor blocked especially JM, even though i feel he handled badly, but I feel that protecting rather than warning was the wrong decision. A bit of stick goes a long way. Ill happily back off, but ask who really is the protection helping at this stage, both editors to a degree whilst warring were discussing and neither editor has been warned for edit warring or formally advised to discuss. Surely this should of been done, otherwise the protection period is pointless as they won't have discussed anything and the dispute could continue one expired. Hence why I felt warning and giving a bit of stick was better. Anyway whilst i disagree I know when to back off.Blethering Scot 23:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...if neither has been warned, why didn't you do it? Now you've explained why no blocks occurred!  the panda  ₯’ 00:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that FreeRangeFrog should of done the reasonable steps before protecting, thats includes warning and giving a bit of stick to see if they continue, then if they both did there is clear grounds for blocks. Protecting punishes normal editors not the two involved.Blethering Scot 10:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to concerned parties (User:Blethering Scot, User:Jmorrison230582, User:Truth, reality and justice) I've initiated a proposal for inclusion of the material in the article at Talk:Leigh Griffiths. Comments are welcome. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned User:Truth, reality and justice for repeatedly adding this material. User:Jmorrison230582 is 100% correct to remove this material and should face no penalty. --John (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this is also being discussed at

WP:BLPN. --John (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

John there is a link to BLPN further up the page.Blethering Scot 10:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

Ive just been outed by User:Jmorrison230582 on talk Leigh Griffiths. I object to him posting my full name and access to my personal details. I do not link to my full name on this site and never have just my surname.Blethering Scot 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the assumption that you have never revealed your twitter account on Wikipedia (and I mean EVER) I have blocked for outing and REVDEL'd the post  the panda  ₯’ 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My twitter page for wikipedia is BletheringScot, it is possible the two could be linked by looking at followers. But even then he has either way deliberately outed me including my full name. He had no need to link to my full personal details, i would never do that to any editor.Blethering Scot 12:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DangerousPanda Can you please revdel his next edit where he added more information. Its still visible.Blethering Scot 12:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone else already caught that second one. I have, however, had to do yet another on his talkpage as he actually gave directions to the world on how to track you down and link to off-wiki  the panda  ₯’ 13:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DangerousPanda Sorry its on the page three times, 13:20, 13:22 and one I've just seen I caused myself by removing the data. See edit at 13:28.Blethering Scot 13:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blethering Scot: I think I got the last of it, although your last comment was deleted I believe. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could someone please review his unblock request. I'm hoping his apology will count. Blethering Scot 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A username like "Truth, reality and justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" is a massive red flag. This user has a tiny number of edits to article space, most of which are to Leigh Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mainly adding contentious content and edit-warring to keep it in. This account needs watching or stopping, IMO. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The next time that account so much as sneezes out of line they will be seeing an indef. --John (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed;

WP:OWB #72... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that all that's been sorted, could someone address the original purpose of the thread and set the protection back to semi or unprotected? NE Ent 15:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely this is was prompted by an OTRS complaint. I advise asking FreeRangeFrog directly, otherwise leave it for now. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave it? Isn't it just pressing a button and typing a quick edit summary? NE Ent 16:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected it. Looks like I missed some GMT drama that's been sorted out. But I agree that if "Truth" so much as adds a negative number to that article some action should be taken. They've had their chance. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the article

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 (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was apparently an initial discussion on the noticeboard here [90]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Works for me. --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) - 00:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was the content dispute that you protected the article for [91]. 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 [92]. 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 [93] --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with TParis as to what steps need to be implemented.--MONGO 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Comment by User:Barek I have just seen the following comment at User talk:Barek, and I guess it applies here.

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

• 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)[reply]

Every half hour or so. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the creator. I'm unsure if we should try just 'rebooting' by changing from 'false' to 'true' in the span of a minute or so. Tutelary (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shut it off per instructions on its userpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you turned it back on again, but the problems still persisted. I changed the protection at Turkey back to indefinite semi-protection, which is how it was before the recent full protection. Hopefully that should kick the bot into functioning properly again. If not, it needs to be disabled again here. Whichever way this is stopped, Σ will need to fix the bug, as it will probably crop up again at some point or other. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the protection status of Turkey didn't work, so I have disabled the bot. Anyone is free to restart it once the bug has been fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tthats hardly a reason for an idef block for a good editor. AndyTheGrump told some tone to "fuck off and die" and wasn't even blocked or warned.

Theres really no policy or direction for the hypocrisy of admin action (and unaccountable at that)Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who talked about indef blocks anywhere, User:Lihaas?  the panda  ₯’ 13:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

♪ talk ♪ 17:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it was meant for the section bellow regarding IRoNGRoN. The context of the that comment makes a lot more sense when applied to that thread.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

History:

User_talk:JamesBWatson#Fresh_eyes_please Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• IronGron has been extremely uncivil to editors and admins. IronGron's has insulted editors who edit articles he was working on. After a chiding to be more civil and to be sure to not claim ownership IronGron escalated to cursing out editors and admins with very vile remarks for IP editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moriori#irongron IronGron then avoids a temp 48hr block by changing IP's and curses out the admin. Another admin reviews the block and issues another warning and IronGron changes IP's to curse out that admin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=604738721#Lockheed_A-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/220.236.52.29 After fair warning to not evade the block IronGron did so twice to insult admins. It is very likely IronGron is again avoiding the block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moriori#Another_Likely_Block_Evasion_of_.E2.98.AD_irongron_.E2.98.AD_.28talk.29

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]

I can see a block – but indef? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never expected or intended that IRoNGRoN would remain blocked for ever. The initial block (placed by

talk) 08:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, here is my attempt to reach out to IRoNGRoN and invite him/her to come back: [94] and here is his/her response: [95]. Here are some of the personal attacks that led to the block: [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 20:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Agree about the talk page issue. But as Til is still reverting anything in the lead that doesn't say "known to scientists", although that phrase isn't in the relevant section of the article, I've taken this to
  WP:NPOVN#Attribution issue at Ethiopia - do we need to say "known to scientists"? -Jérôme (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The user

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 · 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

@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頭 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

JJ has engaged in the sort of behavior at

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[103], and followed that up with a request for comment on a particular formulation that I thought was representative of the problem.[104] 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.[105] He also characterized the opinions of other editors as "whining,"[106][107][108], and the RfC process as a "lynching."[109] He states ironically, "Why don't we just revert the entire article back to the piece of crap it was before I rewrote it?" [110] 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."[111]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

diffs to support them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• I agree with Joe Bodacious and BrownHairedGirl that it would be useful for an admin to take a look at Talk:Earthquake, specifically the RfC and the section below. User seems to be spoiling for a fight. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry BrownHairedGirl, hadn't realised you are an admin! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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
  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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

• Failure or refusal to "get the point". The particular issue is one raised at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Request for comment
  .

  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 "

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

) 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)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss (2nd nomination)

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.

Barney continued additional personal attacks found

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Teaching grandmother to suck eggs helps with context.--v/r - TP 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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

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 ([112], [113], [114], [115]) suggests something must be done,, to put an end to all this.

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really could use some help here. The

WP:SPI. Is there a more appropriate forum to have admin stop this person. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:AIV to stop any disruption in the mean-time. GiantSnowman 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I proposed a 1 sentence 1 source addition to this article [116], at [117]...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.[118]

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[119], user Mongo responds "Everestrecords is apparently a single purpose account" This is obviously dishonest[120], 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 [121] "walk away now or face an indefinite block". In a past edit [122] he sates "youre not able to see the light". In his earlier comment on 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [[123] 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 [124], 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 [[125]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [126], [127] and made extravagant personal attacks on MONGO when confronted [128] and claiming those who dispute their edits are " fan-stalkers of Kellogg." Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If any of these personal attacks are repeated Everestrecords should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• This is not the first time
  WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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頭 17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recommend that you blank this, then. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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頭 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: JacksonViking

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頭 15:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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頭 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]