Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples:

• DYK nomination for Tripedalia cystophora
• DYK nomination for Euglossa dilemma
• AfadsBad's talk page My name and reputation gets dragged into a discussion where the subject is something else entirely. User HalfGig was also harassed and stopped editing after this incident.
• AfadsBad's talk page again I ask for guidance on my errors but do not receive it.

The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--

I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar".

Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates

talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of

WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--

talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.

As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for

owned

article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.

The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.

I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--

talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

  I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate.

talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."

If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA.

talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that
  Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her

talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--

talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor and the commentary I saw at Cas Liber's page and User:AfadsBad as it appears today suggests a level of personal attacks that is over the top. This sort of thing is unacceptable; people can disagree over content without behaving like this. Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no good reason nor intention from AfadsBad when User:AfadsBad directly names and shames User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know. Something must be done to stop AfadsBad from acting as so. starship.paint "YES!" 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out to Cwmhiraeth three days ago at the Editor Review that she added the following information to

Cape_Dorset#Climate, or take a look at File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png

.)

So for most of the past year, the article desert has contained information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts that is completely false. Even when it has been pointed out directly to Cwmhiraeth, she has not corrected it. She also didn't correct a misleading citation I pointed out to her. I think it is fair to say that she is not very responsive to criticism, and in a collaborative project, that is a problem. Assuming AfadsBad's statement "she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct" refers to Cwmhiraeth, it is an accurate description of what I see happening.

The desert article is rated as a Good Article, and attracts around 100,000 views a month. It is one of Wikipedia's 3,000 most viewed articles. Since the false information about the winter temperature in cold deserts was added, the article has seen around a million page views. If it hadn't been for AfadsBad's criticism, this would not have come to light. Now I would like to ask everyone who commented here to think seriously about who serves Wikipedia's reading and donating public, and indeed this project's fundamental goals, better – AfadsBad or the editor who added this and other false information to Wikipedia and shows little inclination to acknowledge that there is any problem? Andreas JN466 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, the statement you make above is very misleading. In my review, you made a number of comments on the Desert article and I responded to most of them, but not to the one you mention above. This was because the information was cited in the article. It was not until several hours after you wrote the post above that you looked at the article, saw the statement was sourced and added "unreliable source" tags and I have now dealt with the issue. On my editor review page you then apologized to me and hid the discussion under an "I misunderstood" heading. Why did you not also retract your accusation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, still, there will still be consequences for off wiki harassment and NPA violations, regardless of the quality of their edits. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says a user who has been here for just about two months and has had his user page revision-deleted by an arbitrator. Good show. Andreas JN466 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas, This comment is confusing, what are you trying to get across? What should I do? Could you explain your advice? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, was there any reason for you to attack Happy Attack Dog? It seems rather suspicious that you resorted to Ad hominem. HAD's rev-dels were apparently done to suppress revealing personally-identifiable information, by the way. starship.paint "YES!" 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much like me, Andreas is unimpressed about a child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor. — Scott • talk 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a "child" can talk sense, why should I discount his opinion? You've made yourself look much worse with your comment and edit summary of Adults are talking. starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

According to someone who calls himself "LazyBastardGuy", pointing out that someone is a child is a personal attack. I can't wait for the next Through the Looking-Glass style revelation that emerges from this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, a "child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor". Your use of "child" was inappropriate, and I do not care about the age of the editor in question (your use was more of a reference to immaturity than actual age). As for my username, it's a reference to me, not to you, not to anyone else. And trust me, the irony of it is not lost on me in this situation (I would have been a fool to expect no comment on it). Maybe if we could all step back from name calling and not care who is doing what, we could then look at the situation rationally and focus on the main ideas I've outlined above your post.

Guy 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The only way I could "win" would be if I could magically remove all the crud Cwmhiraeth has added to Wikipedia, retroactively, so that thousands of children of "Happy Attack Dog"'s age group could have been spared from being exposed to it. — Scott • talk 18:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your points above, LBG, that I could have communicated my points more politely. When I did, Cwmhiraeth scolded me for messing up the format when I removed one piece of bad science (so,

verifiability

?), reverted me on a second piece of bad science I had removed, restoring it to one of en.Wikipedia's mostly highly accessed articles, and ignored everything else I said. How polite am I expected to be in the face of clear evidence that Cwmhiraeth has ownership issues with articles she writes and does not take to editors making corrections on her articles? I have been pointing out her errors for months now. She is upset and considers this harrassmnt. But she doesn't see any need to correct her errors. Pointing out errors politely failed. Pointing out errors in a straight-forward manner failed.

Does verifiability and accuracy matter at all to the encyclopedia? Another editor, below, points out that Cwmhiraeth obviously and repeatedly and problematically makes exactly the types of errors I claim she makes. They are not discrete, occassional or difficult to catch. They are howlers. And she has over 1300 articles full of errors she will not correct. One GA requires a reassessment, a FA required extensive rewriting of its howlers while and after appearing on the main page, and yet another is being rewritten during her editor review. Is she making the corrections? A few, but mostly she is focused on writng more articles in the race to the WikiCup, and they all have the same sort of errors. I think en.Wikipedia culture and especially its WikiCup and DYK subcultures make it impossible to correct a "popular" editor, because the culture favors social relationships built by insiders over accuracy and encyclopedic content. :::::::::::En.Wikipedia has an essay about experts that diminishes and scolds experts to show the supposed superiority of Wikipedia's content delivery system over other encyclopedias, warning experts not to rely upon personal opinion, and that their information must not be OR and must be verifiable. It appears these rules apply to experts, but not Cwmhiraeth. There is no method that will get Cwmhiraeth to correct her howlers, politely pointing out errors was dismissed and scolded, while the errors were returned to en.Wikipedia or ignored. Are we writing an encyclopedia here? Not around those 1300 articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I won’t comment on any of your interactions with other editors, but I will say this: Take a deep breath and relax; now an editor review is open and things are getting done. I hope it is to everyone’s mutual satisfaction; we’re moving forward, hopefully, to what the end result should be and should have been all along. LBG out.

Guy 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I see the end result being 1300 bad articles that fail verifiability and fly in the face of policies on OR and SYN remaining on Wikipedia, uncorrected, and the next editor who notes a problem wiith the science also being told, "Hold your breath little girl, you're too tense." As if this is the only problem. A GA was promoted full of nonsense, imaginary rocks and time travel. I was told the editor had followed rules in promoting it, so it could not be delisted even though it was far worse than a hoax. A Featured Pcture was promoted that contradicts the article, pic or article is either wrong or unsourced or pure OR. I noted this at the FP selection template, but the picture was promoted anyway, because consensus on en.Wikipedia is a majority vote, and, again I find that verifiability is the lowest policy on Wikipedia. There is no method for an editor to safely remove a scientifc mistake fom Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth is not correcting the mistakes she knows about, she is creating more. That is the end result, another thousand mistake-ridden articles gracing en.Wikipedia's main page to follow the last thousand she put there. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light.

Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopia^speak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most sensible post on this debacle so far. Andreas JN466 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, as obvious and glaring as her errors are, they require that Wikipedia spend thousands of hours pointing out every one of them, instead of her stopping with their creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, but moaning won't help. As far as I can tell, you're right on the science; you just need to decide whether you care enough to do something about it here, on Wikipedia, or not. If you want her to stop creating these articles, draft an RfC/U with the appropriate evidence and make a case for a topic ban. Or simply walk away, leave Wikipedia to its devices, and contact editors of science journals. Andreas JN466 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It is especially obvious the editor review is a waste of time, although I will post a list there. Many other editors have seen and can see the glaring errors in her articles, but Cwmhiraeth is content to create more, and the community is content to let her. Verifable, accurate science articles, that are not OR and not odd syntheses of random facts and factoids are not wanted on en.Wikipedia, and my moaning and groaning about the crud will have no impact until en.Wikipedia demands competence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Harassment ok now? Need sanctions on editor

Whatever the content problems, I can't help but wonder why this harassment hasn't been dealt with quickly per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and anything else that might apply. Off wiki harassment wise, I see on her blog User:AfadsBad has a number of posts about user Cwmhiraeth. Why not just change the section title and content to: Feel free to trash editors/admins/arbitrators offline if the policy is not enforced? The editor needs some sanctions til she admits it's bad behavior and stops it permanently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ignore WP:Verifiability should be added first, it's a higher pilar. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here or elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like this, this, this, this or this. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. Andreas JN466 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. (Will check the links.) Are you talking about Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment which is linked from Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment? So we can criticize away on our personal blogs as long as we don't link to it from wikipedia or "out" others ourselves? Even ones you are forbidden to interact with on wikipedia? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Mostly conjectoral/rethorical question. Not something I would do myself, but it could get annoying and feel like harassment if others did it to me more frequently than they already done. I have seen two editors using their user names say nasty things about me on one of the Wikipedia-critical sites (one now site banned for other reasons, another who stopped editing a year or so ago). And an anonymous non-Wiki user with off wiki issues trashed me repeatedly about Wikipedia on his personal blog (someone was blocked recently for linking to one of his posts about me). So I have to have sympathy with Cwmhiraeth. Plus it's not the sort of thing we want to encourage Wikipedia wide and at the least should be considered a negative factor when looking at the whole picture, which I think the harassment policy makes pretty clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad no one will ever be blocked for creating 1300 unverifiable articles. The criticism on my blog is largely content criticism, but, I do mention the editors who create the content. I have problems with the WikiCup which appears to create an atmosphere that encourages promotion and front page dispay of articles full of made up science. Did you create bad articles, filled with unverifiable nonsense, then revert and scold the editor who removed the nonsense? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Actually we do want to encourage people to pay attention to bad science in articles, as well as editors who cause issues in multiple articles. It is not harrassment to look at, and point out an editors errors in detail when they show a pattern. The relevant quote from the harrassment policy (hounding subsection) would be Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. From the evidence at the review its becoming quite clear there are related problems on multiple articles. Well, a related problem. Perhaps next time pay attention to the whole of the policy rather than the specific bits you want to sanction someone for. The harrassment policy is designed to prevent people from being unduly harrassed. It is *not* a shield to hide behind when you come under the spotlight for your bad editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and the incessant repeating of vitriolic harangues and browbeating to anyone anywhere who would listen with few genuine efforts to correct problems. If AfadsBad worked like a little gnome to correct errors and actually contributed to the greater pool of knowledge no one would be having this conversation. Instead, she has the kindness of a rabid hyena and can't stop sounding like a broken 45. If Cwmhiraeth made errors, fine, she's working in good faith and if approached in the ideal spirit of Good Will that Wikipedia prefers (as I've experienced working with her), she would work to correct the record. However, AfadsBad doesn't have an ounce of good will in her, and in eight months of constant harassment, hasn't done much to "fix unambiguous errors" or "correct related problems". Just ranting and obsessive attacks. Thus, sanctions are not just appropriate--they are sorely overdue.--

talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Lol. Do you think Cwmhiraeth will correct all of the errors in her 1300 article contributions? When? She does not seem to be able to correct the errors in five articles in a week. Say 2 days/article, a couple of years from now, while those articles stay on Wikipedia? The Desert schtick is old? How come editors are still having to correct her errors in the article? What would really make the schtick old is if the errors had ben corrected. They haven't. It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. You should feel free to correct them yourself, if being here so I can talk about them bothers you. Better yet, she could correct them while stopping to add more. It is an encyclopedia, after all. And competence is required. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Laugh all you want. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project--one person adds, another adds more or subtracts a little, etc., until eventually it's polished. If you don't intend to contribute, then why are you here? If you only exist to sit on the sidelines and scream at the participants but never played the game yourself... well, I could find some colourful metaphors for "go home" that would not be in good faith.--

talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do.

WP:SOFIXIT exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

When you discover an oil spill which is the better fix a) mop up the mess day after day, or b) shut off the faucet? John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. She reverted, scolded and told me that she owned the articles and would do as she pleased. And, Cwmhiraeth is well supported in this, in keeping her 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia, on its main page, in its FA and GA queues. SOFIXIT doesn't really allow for battling a popular incompetent editor. She wins. Even you are supporting her, Bushranger, by saying the problem is not her writing 1300 bad articles, by saying that

WP:SOFIXIT, and the real problem is my not fixing them. Lol. You don't have to be competent to write Wikipedia articles, because fixing your incompetent edits is someone else's job? 8 months telling her, and she continues to add hundreds more bad articles, and it's now my job to fix all 1300 of them? It's taking her a week to partially fix five of her articles. Why don't you go fix 650, then, when you're done, I'll begin working on the other 700. Meanwhile, she'll create more. And, Wikipedia's reputation as a source will continue to plummet. Editors will question, rightly, whether they need to have verifiable articles, whether they can just fake or make up what the source says, whether they can just mix and match a bunch of different things picked randomly, carelessly, and inaccurately from sources and call it a DYK or GA or FA. Yes, look, Cwmhiraeth does that, and look at this ANI thread, and this editor review, all these people know she does it, and she wins awards and praise for it. Everyone should just do that. And, then, if anyone questions the incompetency, tell them to go fix it! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply

]

You keep bantering around that number 1,300 like it's a real statistic...so far you've complained about maybe a dozen articles, maybe 15 at most. So while you harp on about bad science, maybe you should consider bad statistics...in the vein of knowing 500% of statistics are exaggerated, put up the facts and stop the rhetoric. If you have a list of 1,300 articles with their errors, put it up. Instead of bitching and complaining and repeating yourself over and over and over again....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Identify the specific errors succinctly (no rhetoric), fix them yourself, or go back to your day job pushing a mop at walmart and be a intolerable miserable curmudgeon on your own time. --

talk) 00:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought you had me working as a night clerk at WalMart, now I mop floors days, too? In spite of all this work, I can still spot those science errors, like the imaginary rock formations.

Find one of hers without errors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Can't shift the burden of proof. Put up or shut up.--

talk) 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Is that another one of your rules, like the Good Article review rule? Lol. Just one. She even offered a list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

And in those 8 months have you actually done anything about the problems or just scream harrassment too? 8 months is a long time for an editor to have no improvement. It cuts both ways. Because if AfasBad has been doing this for 8 months and no one is listening, it doesnt really reflect badly on AfadsBad. It reflects badly on the people blaming the messenger. "Working in good faith" does not excuse poor writing. Well actually it probably would excuse poor writing if someone else did the clean up. But it does not excuse synthesis, bad sourcing and blatant factual errors. Nor does it excuse the people reviewing, promoting, then defending such as great work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If AfadsBad rolled up her sleeves and got into the mix, or provided an actionable list of things to correct, they would have been corrected. Instead, aggressive rants was the only m.o. Unfortunately, trolls can only be tolerated for so long and best ignored. If AfadsBad was ignored, and she was often, it was because of method, not message. I have only so much time in this transitory life to be hunting for the chance that she's provided one gem of a worthwhile actionable correction in the massive pile of dung she spewed in her tediously repetitive rants. --

talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I was going to let this play out without commenting, but what the hell. The issue is systemic within the DYK, GA and FA crew. Hardly any of them have expertise in the subject matter. What the editors are doing is grabbing books from libraries, and pdfs from the web and mixing and matching the content. However, they don't have knowledge as to whether the works they are referencing are reliable, up to date, or aren't works of fiction. The mix and matching process that then takes place is an effort to avoid complaints plagiarism, by the the close paraphrasing nazis, so synonyms are used, sentences swapped about, and the science that may originally have been in the sources becomes mangled. The reviewers come along and, being just as clueless as the editor, looks for phrases in the source which are similar to those in the article. The result, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe: all the right words are there they just aren't in the right order. The entire group of them,

Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. John lilburne (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, and your opinion was heard on Wikipediocracy already. No one has ever accused me of plagiarism, paraphrasing, or being egregiously wrong in the articles I've written--so, apparently you're talking from your posterior, IMHO, in painting me with your broad brush. You find something to correct, I'll correct. But a critic who aggressively rants and raves and abuses in the petulant manner as we have seen directed at Cwmhiraeth and others, and someone like AfadsBad deserves to be banned--and I'm rather certain AfadsBad has been before (under other names) for the same crap.--

talk) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Well now it is being heard here too. Now weren't you the one that promoted garbled Geology to GA status only to have it yanked 24 hours later? Despite evidence being presented you still seemed hell bent on dismissing the nonsense science in the article. I think it is plain that you are incapable of discerning rubbish science, and resort to bluster and moaning when called on it. Others might also be inclined to think that your comments here, in particular the mean minded speculations and aspersions about AfadsBad above, are little more than sour grapes on your part. John lilburne (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said articles that I have written, and that you bring that up (one out of a ton of GA reviews) shows you're AfadsBad's talking parrot who flew here after being canvassed at Wikipediocracy.--

talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You were mentioned in this paragraph The entire group of them,

Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. The Geology GA review adequately illustrates the point that you are 'tone deaf to the science' in the articles you are supposed to be reviewing. I don't care about the articles you write but it wouldn't surprise me if you had Mermaids in the South China Seas based on some 16th map drawing, or talking horses because one of you had got hold of a copy of Gulliver's Travels. John lilburne (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah,

talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yet a number of editors accused you of being egregiously wrong in the articles you promote to Good Article, with this sentence which was included in the Pedra da Galvea article when it was promoted by you, ColonelHenry, to Good Article, "The gneiss layer dates to around 600 million years ago; the granite layer is younger and dates to around 450 million years ago and is the result of lava flow.[2][6] The mountain, much like other stone outcroppings that surround the area, is the result of Meso-Neoproterozoic high grade metasedimentary rocks intruding into Neoproterozoice granitoid rocks and thin Cretaceous diabase dikes.[7]" Granite, by distinction is not a lava flow, middle age rocks that have never been liquid, by definition, cannot intrude (something that liquid rocks do) into younger rocks that don't yet exist, in particular, metamorphosed (never liquified) sediments, are very unlikely to melt, since by definition they've never been liquid, as they are metamorphic, into thin dikes that won't exist for at least another 800 million years. The amount of nonsense in these two sentences is stunning. The author, however, took blame and apologized. The promoter fought tooth and nail to keep this article, as is, a "Good Article." --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yawn...do you have anything else than continuing to banter around one bad GA review that I've done out of dozens from months ago that you've already repeated like 2000 times since then because you have nothing original or insightful to add except harping harping harping on tired bullshit? My dispute was that you liked to hijack reviews back then instead of collaborate. Imperious and aggressive at ranting and abuse, just like you are now.--

talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And yet you're still supporting her creating bad science on en.Wikipedia. Creating it, writing it, promoting it. It all leads to bad articles on en.Wikipedia. It's always about someone's behavior, but it's never about the lack of WP:Verifiability. Stop Cwmhiraeth from creating bad science articles, correct the 1300+ existing turds, and I'll stop harping on everything here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

WP:V isn't the crux of this issue--because if you had a list of 1,300 articles with errors, you would have put it up, if you so concerned about errors, you would have fixed them yourself. Instead you provided a

talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it is the crux of the issue. It's a Wikipedia policy. As for collaboration, aren't you the one that freaked out and thought that you owned a Good Article review? She keeps creating hundreds, and you and she keep getting upset that the errors are pointed out. Find one of her articles without these errors. If you don't want your errors pointed out on Wikipedia, don't edit. As for being blocked, I'm already essentially blocked from correcting errors, because correcting a single bad article takes eight months. So, you have my permission to toast now! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

If this site had any kind of sane management, ColonelHenry's behavior in that disgrace of a GA review should have not only immediately disqualified him from doing it again, but also sparked an investigation into how he was able to do it in the first place. — Scott • talk 08:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for some kind of editing restriction on Cwimhraeth, and I'm all for some editing restriction on AfadsBad. As said above, they are both a mixture of good and bad: good faith but sloppy editing on one hand, useful criticism in a sea of harassment on the other. Both need to stop. What I would do, if I were running this place, is: 1)Restrict Cwimhraeth new article creation and article-space editing until a comprehensive review on her edits has finished 2)Put some accuracy warning tag on all articles Cwimhraeth has created, so that at least we can warn readers 3)Enforcing on-wiki harassment of Cwimhraeth by AfadsBad to stop: if AfadsBad wants to do useful criticism and/or fix stuff herself, all the best, but any more personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, if I were running this place, but luckly I don't. --cyclopia^speak! 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds User:Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Even if I hadn't been constantly sidetracked by BLP nonsense in 7 years in wikipedia, I can't imagine writing 300 good articles in the relative less complex areas of politics I'm interested in. And looking into possible collusion or whatever the allegation is in the Good Article process would be helpful. (I've never paid much attention to all that ranking business myself.) If those charges are exaggerated and someone is mostly ticked articles aren't written to impossibly high standards and would rather just complain about it and harass a more productive editor, that's definitely even a bigger problem. We'll see if there's an admin willing to be proactive and creative on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, please have a look at the editor review. We are not talking about failure to meet "impossibly high standards" here. What we are talking about is a million readers being told, for nearly a year, that the average winter temperature in cold deserts like Greenland and Antarctica is between –2 and +4 °C, for example. And that live penguins' feet are kept at deep-freezer temperatures to prevent them getting chilled. These were absurdities. Andreas JN466 03:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the opinion that Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Just throwing out an idea, perhaps Cwimhraeth editing should (for a while) be restricted to cleaning up all the previous articles that she has previously edited (if you trust her on that). But AfadsBad's attacks on Cwimhraeth simply have got to stop. starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we need to close this and focus on the content at the editor review. Really. Bluster on both sides that engenders more antagonism is unhelpful. No comments on this thread are going to do anything but add more heat and less light. Anyone who wants to help out please go to the editor review page and please focus on (or fix) specific articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor review will probably help Cwimhraeth, but how will the editor review affect AfadsBad? Has AfadsBad at the very least agreed to be nice and guaranteed better future behaviour, if not expressed some form of remorse? I see User:AfadsBad still mentions Cwimhraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the issues at GA/DYK WikiCup etc and the problems vanish. This could have all been sorted long ago with the animosity if people in those groups had taken notice of what they were being said. But they didn't. They circled the wagons, vomited out policy and process acronyms to avoid addressing the issues, and generally behaved as spoiled brats. All so that they could continue accumulating points for competitions, and add extra bragging tags on their user pages. The systemic problem is that those involved don't have a full understanding of the subject. That isn't a problem with writing an article on pop culture, you can rephrase stuff, use synonyms, mix and match bits from different sources, and it doesn't matter so much whether you are an expert or not. When the same techniques are used with the sciences the result is garbled nonsense. The process for GA/DYK in science articles needs to be overhauled, you need someone in there with a grasp of the subject, it is not enough to simply tick boxes: got a picture, passes spell check, passes grammar check, not obviously plagiarized - OK good to go. You need some one there capable of asking "does this make any sense at all, and is it accurate?" John lilburne (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Casliber. But, try to emphasize that it is not just the articles at the editor review it is all of her science articles. I checked about 50 for my blog, looking at her early ones, later ones, insects, bats, plants. Every article contains the same sloppy editing, made up descriptions, imaginary colors, falsely weighted information, inaccurate information, made up information, synthesized taxonomies that are complete OR. There are only a few articles at the editor review, and it looks like it will take days for every article to be checked. There are 1300 articles that need rewritten. Time spent doing that would be time much better spent than this discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know whether all his articles contain serious errors, or whether even most do, but it seems clear that many of them do, and that this is based on a lack of understanding, not on typos or the like. The editor review lists some examples, I reviewed two other articles he proposed very recently for DYK at

Please come up with actual examples, if you can Fram. Not your vague innuendoes. If you really have anything of substance, the proper place to air it is at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the same kind of discussion last time we met, Epipelagic, with you never being satisfied with any answer and constantly shifting the goalposts, and I have no intention of starting another round of this. If you can't see the actual example in my post and only see "vague innuendo", then so be it.

Fram (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Things need to be put into perspective. We are talking about 1300 articles here. You have offered one specific example. Readers can judge for themselves whether this should properly be called original research, or whether it would be more accurately described as hair splitting in an over zealous attempt to make someone wrong. As for the last time we met, there was indeed "the same kind of discussion". As was said then, and seems to still apply, "Fram specialises in attacking minor issues concerning high flyers and worrying at them like a pitbull until he can turn them into gaping wounds." --Epipelagic (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is such an ugly thread. Several pitchfork admin are slavering and gesturing in hideous ways on the sidelines. AfadsBad doesn't seem to have contributed a single article of worth him or herself, so it is not clear if he/she is even capable of such a contribution. Cwmhiraeth has contributed 1300 articles according to AfadsBad. AfadsBad has been given his/her best shot at demolishing Cwmhiraeth here, and has come up with remarkably few issues with any real substance.

You ask, AfadsBad, whether correcting bad science is harassment? Yes it certainly is, if you do it the way you are doing it. It is not altogether your fault. If Wikipedia had any will to set up a functional admin system, issues like this one would be accommodated as they arose. There will always be editors who overreach themselves in certain areas. If we had an ideal system, such editors would be intercepted and guided so they are more aware of where their limitations are. All editors have limitations outside their particular areas of expertise, and often the best articles are written by editors who are writing outside their areas of expertise. That is because such writers can be more sensitive to confusions that confront people who not experts in that area. This issue has been allowed to develop in the ghastly manner we see here because Wikipedia lacks an admin structure worthy of its content builders. Having said that, I want to commend the admins BlackKite and Cas liber who have responded in honourable ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I ask that? I have been talking about the bad science for eight months, on and on notes ColonelHenry. But no one is correcting it. Cwmhiraeth continues to create it, meanwhile. Other editors pointed out the same problems, two years ago on Tree, a couple of times through the years on her talk pages. Did anyone listen to them? Did Cwmhiraeth? If I had not been strident, blogged, joined Wikipediocracy, no one would have listened. Even now, I suspect she will continue adding bad science. She's working on another FA. --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Another inaccurate statement from AfadsBad - "She's working on another FA." Oh, really? It's the first I knew of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the question, at least rhetorically, here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I just reread your post that I haven't contributed a single article of worth. Then nominate them for deletion. My best contribution to Wikipedia came as the result of what I was doing here, adding citations, and it was an AFD, not an AFC. When you misspell the name of a plant family in the title of an article, leave it that way for seven years so the misspelling gets 50,000 g-hits, and see it translated to half a dozen other languages, AFDing the article here and elsewhere and correcting the links is worthwhile. But, as the articles I created aren't of worth, please delete them. But I think Fram covered you well enough. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You haven't taken your articles past the stub stage, often just one-line stubs. I shouldn't have said they have no worth. I should have said that that they are not substantial. If you risked yourself, by writing some substantial articles which could be examined as models for the impeccable standards you advocate, your attacks would carry more weight. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think John lilburne's vulgar advice at the Wikipediocracy forum, in the discussion that is has become the venue for both coordinating this assault on Cwmhiraeth and a general gloatfest by her assailants, that I should "lick his wounds or balls which ever gives him most comfort", or referring to another contributor by a sexual act is appropriate.[16]. Never understood why persons who indulge in venting their hate of Wikipedia at Wikipediocracy continue to hang around Wikipedia or continue to think their opinion matters to people who contribute to the project. You would think they would get another trollish hobby. Perhaps if Scott, lilburne, and AfadsBad were sanctioned with bans, they can spend more time griping at Wikipediocracy instead of disruptive behaviour and agitation here.--
  talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • I'm coming to that conclusion myself. These people are trolls who, as far as I can tell, have no agenda to improve any of the articles they are complaining about, they only wish to attack a good-faith editor who has worked very, very hard here. My advice to these individuals is this: Before you criticize, how about getting off your high horse and try fixing the thing yourself? Put up or shut up. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ways to address this have been adequately expressed above. Fixing individual issues is NOT the way to proceed. You examine the cause of the problem "the non-subject experts writing science articles by applying techniques appropriate to none science articles" and you find away of fixing that. The answer to the problem I can guarantee won't be "get some other ignoramus to check it over before promoting it to GA status, or shoving it on the main page as a DYK." Fer goodness sake last year a FA article boldly stated that Richard II was king of England in 1345, and it had been that way foir three years, the copy editor says that their role is NOT to fact check. Which is crazy because how can you effectively manipulate sentences if you don't know what the facts are? The system is broke, doesn't work, and those involved in the process are circling the wagons. Now I've shown you the way to the fix what are you going to do? BTW the sandpit with the ostriches is over that a way ----->. John lilburne (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way to address this was a reasonable discussion 8 months ago saying "this, this, this, and this need to be corrected"...instead, AfadsBad came in with the demanding ominous presence of a bat-wielding street gang. 8 months later, with her behavior of harassment, attacks, and aggression unchecked and unabating, she needs to be blocked. This is inimical to what the project is about. That you endorse this kind of aggressiveness toward a good-faith contributor is downright appalling, your attacks on anyone who disagrees with AfadsBads methods are despicable, and I hope you and your equally detestable buddy Scott can join AfadsBad's fate.--
        talk) 19:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I did say this, this and this need corrected. Cwmhiraeth scolded me for this1, reverted this2, and ignored this3. Tried and failed. Yet you keep saying that what I should have tried that failed is what I should have tried. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
          • No you didn't, you ranted and raved, no one likes to read that shit. People are here to contribute, not to read angry vituperative and sanctimonious jeremiads that go on and on without getting to the f&*%%ng point. WP:WALLOFTEXT applies. Further, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar--I told you that--but you were downright hydrofluoric acid about it all. I told you to play nice, that you'd get what you wanted by more pleasant congenial means, you never stopped being nasty and dictatorial about it. People like you need to take your circus of nastiness to the next town, or be run out of town on a rail.--
            talk) 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
        • Pointing to content problems is not "inimical to what the project is about". Turning a deaf ear to such pointers, on the other hand, is. Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch at the editor review, and acknowledges that there have been problems in her work. Perhaps it would be more conducive to a peaceful and constructive solution if bystanders here were to disengage from attempts to ratchet up tension? Andreas JN466 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • AfadsBad needs to go. Abusing another editor the way AfadsBad did is what I described as inimical. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Content disputes come and go and can be worked out, but aggression like AfadsBad needed to be nipped in the bud long ago. This would have all been worked out long ago if not for AfadsBad's relentlessly nasty behaviour. Seeing that Cwmhiraeth has never mistreated anyone, there is no doubt in my mind where the blame squarely belongs. Whether or not the message was correct, the method of bludgeoning another editor relentlessly is inimical to the project's state goals.--
            talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Andreas - you say "Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch" - as a uninvolved editor I have to ask why isn't AfadsBad doing the same? I've already said this before above, is there any evidence that AfadsBad's future behaviour will change, or any sign of an apology for past behaviour? starship.paint "YES!" 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPETENCE issues of User:Cwmhiraeth

See the discussion in the section on Boring clam (should be the last). Her answers to the points I raised on a review of a random article of hers -mind you, one that she edited after the editor review and the start of this thread- make me worry that some of the unpleasant frustration of AfadsBad could be justified. --cyclopia^speak! 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite by blocked for 48 hours for unspecified reasons ([17]) by User:Fayenatic london, User:Skookum1 continues to make personal attacks. The last month and a half has seen an incredible wave of personal attacks, many against myself. Other more experienced editors advised me not to do anything since it would be a waste to time, so I sat back and observed the Skookum1's attacks continue unabated. Finally I started issuing warnings on his talk page (March 20th, March 21st, March 21st, and March 31st, in hopes of grabbing the attention of an administrator, but so far in vain. People have commented that Skookum1 makes valuable contributions; however, the other editors and I also make valuable contributions to Wikipedia for years now and have done so without violating basic Wikipedia Pillars.

For a sampling of personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" also constitutes a personal attack):

• Against myself: "she's NOT a good editor, she's behaving in a rogue manner, I'll take it up elsewhere, I guess I was just pointing out to you that somebody's sleeping dog didn't really want to stay lying down...." diff
• Against myself: "You don't get how half-informed you are about the FOO people problem ... Your logic throughout all of this has been half-informed ... It's ironic to me that you, as someone on an indigenous high horse often enough, as with how you came at me over the Nevada categories, would in this case wind up pandering to the name-changes brought on by colonialist attitudes/chauvnism towards native nomenclatures..... diff
• Against myself: "Well, if I didn't have to hear the same obstinate, half-informed ideas brought over time and again ... All the things she's bringing forward right now I told her about already, she dismissed them, told me what I thought didn't matter, and that she's entitled to her opinion. What she's really saying is she's determined to underscore her ignorance and has no intentions of learning about the subject matter she's screwing with" diff
• Against myself: "you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories ... start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about." diff
• Against myself: "pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??" diff
• Against myself (accusation w/o proof): "... considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial
  WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards ... to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do.... Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process." diff

• Against User:Maunus and myself: "He was at the time of most if not all, hence the overwrite power he had, which maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour." diff
• Against
  K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke." diff and diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" diff
• Against JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." diff
• Against JorisvS: "Please contain your prejudices ... The subtext of bigotry towards native peoples and their names in all such RMs is both tiresome and disturbing ..." diff
• Against JorisvS: "You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." diff

If anyone wants more examples, I can furnish more.

Skookum1 has frequently accused me of attacking him, but when asked to find concrete proof, could not (User talk:Skookum1#March 2014). The conversation where he incorrectly believes I accused him of racism is located at User talk:Skookum1/Archive 18#Categories on redirects and User talk:Skookum1/Archive 19#December 2013. He accused me of calling his edits to Nevada tribes' categories as "vandalism"; however, I never did. The edit summaries of the edits in question can be found: here and here; they involved removing reservation cats from redirects.

Skookum1 has many conspiracy theories against me, which, frankly, I find disturbing. In truth, I try to avoid him as much as possible in my editing, this AN/I being a major exception. In real life, I work with numerous Native artists from British Columbia, but don't bother writing about them on Wikipedia in the attempt to avoid Skookum1.

This recent barrage of personal attacks has created a toxic environment that does not serve any of us well. Ignoring the problem hasn't helped, and issuing warnings on Skookum1's talk page hasn't achieved anything. These personal attacks need to stop. If there *is* a policy that allows a user to attack anyone they want without any recourse, I would like to hear it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

• Comment I've had many run-ins with Skookum, though I haven't always been polite either. If I disagree with him on a matter of procedure (for example, when Skookum dislikes the names of articles that follow our naming guidelines, I think it's best to discuss changing the guidelines, rather than making scores of move requests and arguing each of them independently as an exception to the guidelines), then he accuses me of racism, perversion, conspiracy, or other acts of bad faith. I've had good experiences with him too, where he's been reasonable and helpful, but only when (a) I agreed with him, or (b) I was seeking his advice and had no opinion of my own. Skookum has made valuable edits, but not IMO valuable enough to overlook his socially inappropriate behaviour. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My reasons for blocking are set out on my talk page rather than Skookum1's, User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Skookum1. I have tried to coach this editor, but have not succeeded. Although I chose not to take further enforcement action in his case, I have been warning him (see his talk page) that action is bound to come if he does not change his behaviour, but sadly this has not changed. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My encounter with Skookum1 was at
    improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I am not an administrator. I ignored your personal attacks for weeks; however, they did not abate, so I gave giving you warnings for your personal attacks (which I would have no cause to do, if you would simply stop creating personal attacks). An AN/i is not a personal attack; having a different opinion is not a personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • how bizarre but also typical of you, in all your conflations of my points about issues and guidelines and ongoing conduct and often rank dishonesty into alleged NPA status. "having a different opinion is not a personal attack" is completely contrary to how you have been treating my "different opinions" (which are 90% of the time or more directly about citable facts, other precedents and various guidelines other than the one being tub-thumped repetitively and out of context; I present facts, you claim they are only opinion while continuing to defend ORIGINALRESEARCH in NCL and also in NCET, and you deride my presentation of this with open derision and uncivil commentary on a regular basis, though not as harshly as the many AGFs and NPAs from your NCL colleagues which you also turn a blind eye to.

I am glad you are not an admin; I have seen your overwrite redirects and other things which led me to believe that; your pompousness and back-handed attitude towards my attempts to discuss guidelines and such matters as the "FOO people" problem and category redirects has been noxious and insulting. Your ANI is as hypocritical as much of your other conduct and words; this is a waste of time and is just more obstructionism and and a way to keep from answering to issues and RMs and to seek official muzzling of me to keep me from critiquing the NCL agenda and your own inconsistent positions on many matters. I will find that lengthy derision you launched at me re the category redirects which you deny making, as it was competely an NPA, being insulting and also somewhat racist towards me as a non-indigenous person.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Skookum1 is passionate about what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. While Skookum1 could have picked less inflammatory words I can understand his frustration when faced with a group of editors who don't understand what the guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages)) say, here and here and here. Faced with that sort of remark and the belief by this group of editors that "one size fits all" ("Foo people: and "Foo language") even when this leads to article titles that violates Wikipedia:No original research it is no wonder that he tends to get frustrated. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single monolithic group of editors. Over years now, I've dealt with the exact same situation, have been equally frustrated, but read and am familiar with the current iteration of both conventions, discuss the issues on the talk pages of those conventions, and don't resort to personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Given there's established consensus to violate

WP:MOS when it comes to article titles in certain other parts of the encyclopedia, that ship sailed long ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In this diff today, Skookum1 attributes all kinds of unspecified bad intent to me and others. This is uncalled for. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, yet more conflation and distortion claiming to be NPA when really it is evasion of the gist of your opposition, which is obstructionist and not about guidelines or real-world usage, but only a defence of your claim that the title in question is ambiguous, which it is NOT and you ignore both guidelines and cites/stats produced by entrenching the belief that it IS ambiguous, despite being no different from

WP:CSG#Places is very clear about such issues but you muddy the waters despite proof that the District of Saanich is the primary usage in the course of justifying ignoring guidelines that I am acting under the mandate of, and with consensus from other WPCANADA editors.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Skookum1, forgive me for being extremely blunt here, but there's a saying that's relevant to your situation here. Extremely relevant, even. "When you're in a hole, stop digging." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your repeated attacks on my writing style buried the very relevant points I raised and the support votes coming from informed and conscientious editors who understand what I'm talking about and don't hassle me for my writing style as if it were a crime; BHG's closure in making me the target of the negative and off-guideline closure are of the same kind as your own targeting of me in your Fayenatic's close of last year of the previous CfD. and rather than heed him, you ignored the Mightyquill's comments about focusing on what I have to say not on me, which is totally contrary to the way any discussion is supposed to be decided on; on guidelines and facts, not targeting the proponent as a reason to deny the very needed CfD to correct the very bad and vague resulting stasis at a very questionable title. Others see my points and agree; the closure of the Squamish town RM was similarly skewed by procedural bafflegab and the endless TLDR mantra by those who cannot manage to read extended argument or even the guidelines, and by a host of opposition votes from people voting against the proposal in well-established and persistent patterns of knee-jerk opposition to anything I do or say.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned there, I came into that discussion neutral; my opinon of your editing style and discussion style was fully shaped by nobody other than yourself. Perhaps you need to consider, just for a moment, that if people are "opposed to anything I do or say", then perhaps maybe, just maybe, the problem is not them, but you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow I'm not sure if Skookum1 could have proved the OP's point any better. Might have been better to plead the Fifth, however, based on the above alone, I forsee a break in Skookum1's editing patterns in the near future ES&L 10:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the huge amount of valuable work I've been putting in despite endless harassment from a certain faction who want to see me gone because I'm in their way? Summary censure of a valuable contributor and very encyclopedically-conscious editor because of the insecurities towards my lengthy writingz and detailed commentary and wide-ranging interests and knowledge, or silencing my ability to respond to putdowns and insults accordingly? Is Wiki-bureacracy putting itself ahead of content so readily that someone who's created a huge mass of articles is so easily shut out by someone's attacks against me reaching such fever pitch and endless hypocritical accusations against me by those stonewalling and degrading me on a regular basis? Really? Is that what Wikipedia is about? The iron hand of so-called wikiquette and blatant hypocrisy about same, rather than honestly and fully addressing issues of content and TITLE??Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No personal attacks provides the definition of "personal attacks," which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Oh, so Kwami calling my bringing up guidelines that he doesn't like "ridiculous" and "idiotic" and more is fine and dandy huh? And there were claims about NPA about me that had to do with nothing more than showing how he (and others) were in violation of guidelines or had ignored consensus (just as you had done in re-creating Category:Squamish). I'm busy in real life; your own groundless accusations and many putdowns of me are many, I'll get to them yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have also successfully showcased why there is WP:DIVA (Specifically the part stating "... long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, long of course being subjective). Seriously just in the ANI responding to your behavior you have tossed out at least half a dozen dispersions. The requirements to edit also include being able to work in a colaborative environment; content isn't created in a vacuum. Creating a hostile editing environment is not the way to go. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should use that term "Diva" it applies very much to Uysvdi as links here later will show; but here's a good one where she reverts a needed change to NCET saying "no consensus", meaning that she and Kwami don't want it, even though it's come up over and over and over again in the RMs that the "NCL Pack" (I was reading

WP:OWN. Many others have pointed out those flaws in NCET, the consensus is there, and the flaws are so many in NCL that IMO it should be trashed and started over from scratch from objective reality, not the agenda of a club of linguists.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC) [reply

]

Also, no one, I mean, no one, wants to read a wall of text. If you want people to read your argument, please be concise, direct and on topic.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who are disrupting the project are those who are persistently blocking changes mandated to titles by major guidelines; and Kwami's attempt to shut down RMs because he claims he wants a centralized discussion; one that he did not hold when he went across thousands of articles without discussion, applying a guideline that he wrote himself; among the casualties were important indigenous titles in my own part of the world, which it took five bitterly fought RMs and no end of personal abuse and baiting from, to correct. "Disruptive" like "subjective" and "diva" are way more apt for his behaviour and that of the other NCLers who persist in trying to block name changes with subjective arguments, specious commentary, and re-incantations of NCL with no discussion of anything else - except attackign Canadian English. Uysvdi has mostly stayed out of these RMs; the whole campaign of oppositionism has been noted and criticized by others.... I'm used to the ironies of being accused of what others are doing, but calling ME "disruptive" when all this is going on...well, that's what Kwami said about my launching of individual RMs on the titles he wantonly changed to suit himself after the bulk RMs I launched to address only 120 of them were closed. I have to get busy with my day; the track record of this campaign to bully and oppose me is very long, and I'm not the only one who has observed that there's one hell of a lot of knee-jerk opposition and relentless nitpicking going on to delay the needed reversions; I was going to file a multiple ANI on this group of editors (whicvh is not a conspiracy because it's public and also demonstrable fact) but Uysvdi beat me to it. I'm not the one being disruptive, I'm the one being victimized by those who are being disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, you're doing yourself no favours here. Walls of text + inflammatory language in response to concerns raised at AN/I are extremely unlikely to result in a situation that continues with your unimpeded ability to edit. Walk away from the computer, have a cup of tea or whatever you prefer, and practice some mindfulness before you continue to engage here. I urge you to do this for your own good, and for your ability to keep editing without problems. — Daniel 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1 exhibits some classic diva behavior, and his inevitable return from the last "throw my arms up in the air" wikibreak that lead me to this conclusion is reinforced - and problems continue. I do not understand the persecution complex, and I probably don't need to. Skookum1 needs to toe the line like we all have to. Doc talk 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tacit message I've received from Wikipedia in the last month and a half is that Skookum1 gets to shower me with personal attacks, including accusations with no proof of my attacking him, and he will face absolutely no recourse—despite personal attacks bringing a major breach of the pillars of the institution. I've been plugging along since July 29, 2007, editing and creating new articles. But despite a solid track record of six and a half years of editing, apparently I just have to lump it and endure attacks such as the following?

• "IMO you are a coward and a hypocrite... like a blind bull in a china shop. ... So go ahead, feel powerful, delete me from your little self-contained world; and throw me another taunt; you attacked and degraded me over your precious nevada categories, then waded into a BC category as if by deliberate malice. Knowingly provocative. I think you're happy with the mess you've created. Since I've pointed out that you're a hypocrite and acting from cowardice too, I might as well add that your behaviour is clearly passive-aggressive ... I also think you're a racist." diff
• "impugning me as a racist and a white-guy-who-should-butt-out-of-native-topic areas, as Uysvidi has done" ... "Childish behaviour masked as righteous snottiness; I'm not the self-righteous one here, you are, and Uysvidi." diff.

There's all this discussion about how to attract and retain new editors, female editors, native editors, etc. Why would *anyone* want to work anonymously and for free just to endure treatment like this??? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Uyvsdi, I'm not sure you've read the comments we've made towards Skookum if you honestly somehow read that we tacitly approve of their pathetic, childish, and inappropriate behaviour at all. The message that they should have got was this: "you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message DP 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA ""you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message" = if that's a statement against me or for me, I'm not sure, but given that the prevailing winds here are "shut up and let us pass judgment on you" I'm gathering it may be the former. "The condemned is not allowed to speak in his own defence".......very Kafka-esque. The "pathetic, childish and inappropriate behaviour" is in the nasty and/or wheedling comments and obstructionism I'm responding to in all cases. "Any further comments [from the accused] will lead to a block"?? So it's ok to vilify me, but not OK for me to put any of it in context? If so, then per my just-now comments in response to Uyvsdi's continued hounding of me below will see me blocked by the time I wake up (it's 1:51 am where I am) - and the discussion she's quoting from will go quiet and the issues and guidelines I have brought to the front burner will be left gather dust in archive-space. Upshot: nothing done except tossing out of Wikipedia a highly productive contributor with a great amount of knowledge and dedication, as many others have observed, despite my prolix manner, I've done one hell of a lot of work in many areas.

Why toss me out? Because I dared defend myself against unfair criticism, and dared to dispute guidelines that are flawed by pointing out how they are in violation of major guidelines? Is that how wikipedia works? I'm not the one trying to waste time by delaying or obstructing RMs, I'm trying to correct things that were recklessly done in the name of those inadequate guidelines (one in particular, whose advocates are the real problem here); it was Uysvdi's own actions at Category:Squamish et al who precipitated my taking things to proper procedure to get the matter properely addressed. Instead of y'all continuing to justify your intent to ban me here, why don't you actually have a look at the points raised in the RMs and in the NCET discussion and take part in it, instead of aiding a very partisan opponent in her campaign to prevent me from continuing to try and raise the issues of those guidelines. If you do vote to block me, you are being played ..... and the guidelines will go uncorrected and will continue to be abused by those who perpetuate their misapplication and inadequacies, and Kwami will go have a beer and a laugh.

Other editors have observed to me privately that ANI and the like are habituated by people who like to exert power, who like to say no, who like to pick people apart unfairly...... who relish their roles as jury, judge and executioner......prove me, and them, wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was in part responding to a message on my talk page that nothing would happen and that I was wasting people's time. Here's posts from yesterday/today:

• (directed at User:Kwamikagami): Edit summary: "pfft, you're hardly the one to talk about 'workign with other people'", talk: "why do you continue to pretend that any further discussion is needed when you have resisted, stonewalled, and derided any attempt to discuss anything and indulged in endless and repeated derisions and insults?" diff and "The further point, constantly rejected by "global English chauvinists..."
• (also directed at User:Kwamikagami): "Your own attitudes towards native people in last year's RMs "we don't have to care waht they think" are both un-wikipedian and against guidelines. It's also worth noting that a lot of the native endonyms are plurals, in fact I'd be hard pressed to think of one that isn't. Your attempt to shut me out of a discussion you yourself invited me to is all too typical of your behaviour and bad attitude and is yet another AGF on your part. Will you ever address actual issues instead of wheedle and wiklawyer by habit of being obstructionist and endlessly seeking to defray discussion rather than actually listen to it???? It is you who are "disruptive" and it is you who deserve the nasty epithets you wielded at me, here and elsewhere." diff
• (still directed at User:Kwamikagami): ""Or do you mean stop taking part in pointing out issues and precedents you persistently ignore by attacking and sniping at me?? Points, since I know you have difficulty, like so many here, with reading blocks of sustained argument and topic points..." and "Let me bold the critical phrase for you, since you have comprehension problems it seems..." and " I'm talking straightforward references to guidelines, you are making accusations and distortions and now "shut up and go away" subtexts "will you stop now?" Why don't YOU stop refusing to recognize widespread consensus that is based on, as CBW has observed more than once, guidelines that you just want to ignore or nitpick by whatever means; when confronted by them you attack me...." and " "Why don't you stop now?" indeed. YOU are the stonewaller - and "white man speak with forked tongue" also." diff.

The last line, wth??! We're in the 21st century. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

You really don't have any sense of irony at all do you??? That comment was because Kwami is, as always, twisting what people say to claim it means something else- something you have done to me yourself re the "people" issue I raised in a guideline and you came back as if I were talking about TWODABS, which it was clear I was not. I'm a white man, and I don't engage in such dishonest behaviour as we so persistently see from Kwami, who you are bizarrely defending here as though he were a victim and not a persistently disruptive and obstructionist quibbler (there's other words I can use, but...). Why don't you address the guidelines and consensus points I raised there instead of coming here and giving my responses to Kwami instead of also the b.s. he was dishing out so as to avoid discussing those same guidelines and issues that you won't condescend to admit to, though dozens of RMs, as Cuchulainn has observed and I quoted there, have already spoken loud and clear. You don't want a discussion, and you don't want a "consensus" with someone about guidelines and precedent-setting RMs, you want to silence that discussion by blocking the person who brought all those guidelines and issues up and has had success in getting others to listen, though you won't even answer me, but you do want to talk ABOUT me, out of context, so as to have me banned. So those discussions will go nowhere, and you can claim that "consensus" is on your side. To achieve that consensus you have come here to enlist a firing squad......Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say you're avoiding me, but you're obviously still bent on hounding me, and continue to be "just fine" with Kwami's ongoing snipes and tendentiousness at that guideline "discussion" where CBW and I are trying to talk about guideline issues and changes that need addressing in the wake of, as observed by Cuchulian, "consensus has spoken" across a whole slew of RMs mandating that changes that I tried to make and you claimed "no consensus" when reverting........your silence on questions concerning the terms "preferred" and "unambiguous" speaks to your lack of unwillingness to enter discussions about actual guidelines that you and those who concocted NCL and now seek to stonewall NCET from the changes mandated across dozens of RMs...my retorts to Kwami are all correct, and your unwillingness to address his ongoing taunts and the insults he copy-pasted across those RMs is proof to me of your one-sidedness and your intent to continue to harangue about me while it's me who's bringing forward the issues that the consensus you say does not exist has clearly already mandated.

Your hypocrisy on the "FOO people" issue in re-creating Category:Squamish against consensus on a category title you knew very well, if you had indeed read the CfDs as you claim to have, was contentious and controversial in the extreme, and happened only a few weeks after Montanabw suggested we stay out of each other's way, me out of Nevada and the Southwest, you out of areas you know I'm active in i.e. BC native categories, the system for which I am, yes, one of the principal architects. You waded into a controversy on a subject/title that you know very little about and on the basis that "FOO people" was ambiguous - your word precisely, and ratehr than address that you rudely deleted my attempt to raise it with you, just as you had refused to listen to reasons why Category:Skwxwu7mesh was valid per TITLE/CONSISTENCY/PRECISION and yes, it is very ironic that you would seek to retrench a "colonialist" name instead of going with CONSISTENCY to return it to the native form that was created by an indigenous artist and activist of some note.

That you also unhatched a PRIMARYTOPIC dispute over the town/district of Squamish is not incidental; precedents on "town-people" pairs continue to be resolved in favour of the town; you waded into somewhere you had no knowledge of, and refused when I did try to broach it with you, as recreator of the "new" (previously deleted by consensus) category

Using me as an excuse to not create native artist bios is, quite frankly, pathetic. Create them, I rarely work on artist bios of any kind......no doubt you will point to this as another so-called "personal attack" when you tolerate Kwami's direct insults and stonewalling right and left is just proof to me of your partisanism and not giving the full context of why I was responding as I did to Kwami - and JorisV, who also has been extremely tendetious and oppositional and also refusing to address guidelines.

CBW is right, I'm passionate about what I believe is best for wikipedia and that I'm very frustrated with the stonewalling and derision coming from the NCL camp and speak my mind about the obstinacy and pissy - tendentious - responses I get, which often contain overt or soft-pedalled personal attacks and condescensions of all kind. Kwami has tried to shut down the discussions that, with some exceptions due to PRIMARYTOPIC reasons, now have established consensus, as observed by Cuchulainn, for the amendments to NCET and NCL that you refuse to address (through your silence) and which Kwami is turning, time and again, to attacks on me, including twisting what Cuchalainn had said to pretend it agreed with him which it did not in the course of, once again, to stonewall addressing the issues that not just me, but CBW, has raised.

There is much more background behind Usyvdi's selections against me above, including the recent ones from NCET (where she does not post the material I was responding to), that point to an overall pattern of obstinate and hostile BAITing that is very much along the lines of Kwami's failed attempts to block last year's RMs. Among these were my attempts to raise the issue of indigenous endonyms at IPNA, only to be pushed aside with "we've got more important things to do" without even telling me about NCET or, if that was before NCET came into existence, the relevant section at NCP it was transferred from or the discussions going on about it on the NCP talkpage.

No doubt my 'failure' to shut up as instructed above is going to be yet another stroke held against me; but if I can't defend myself against a one-sided witchhunt when others who do much worse, and persistently continue to obstruct and oppose and also insult and deride me......ack.... if that's the case, then Wikipedia consensus is more of a kangaroo court than rational discussion, and issues are being ignored while the bearer of the person who is bringing them forward, wanting them addressed when they have not been, and you refuse yourself to deal with them (Uyvsdi) never mind condescend to discuss them;

I have produced view stats, googlesearches, guideline citations, and been responded to with silence/inaction on your part and continued

WP:BAITing

me by Kwami, and now seeing you cherrypick my responses to him as more evidence of why you want me banned from Wikipedia, raises again my original point that this is a highly partisan and one-sided ANI and is really harassment, and nothing else. Well, it's not nothing else if you do succeed in having me thrown out like Kauffner has been....interestingly it was his tendentiousness that created the Squamish imbroglion in the first place, what with his very hasty speedy CfD and TfD to "Squamish" right after the initial RM there were ill-informed claims were made to justify changing a title that had stood for six years

as with other native endonym RMs/ closures and guidelines raised in them have demonstrated, "Skwxwu7mesh" did address all of the bits of TITLE that NCET and NCL, which you refuse to allow proper reforms to - reverting saying "no consensus" but refusing to discuss anything towards that consensus discussions where, other than having to respond to Kwami's ongiong nastinenss, I'm being very "rational" and specific about guidelines and precedents.

If my need to voice my defenses here, or against Kwami and his wikilawyering and tendentiousness at NCET and elsewhere, is used as a reason to call me a "diva" and throw TLDR at me as if it were a criminal offence, with capital punishment awaiting me if I dare to speak again, or to respond to you, then it underscores my point that wikiquette, and not content, is the primary governing module of the Wikipedia "backroom".....making an editor the issue instead of the content is boilerplate for discussion pages.

The Squamish issue that you waded into either without knowing what you were doing, or as deliberate BAITing is not dead; it will come back if not by me by others; it was in fact, your observation in doing what you did there that prompted me to address address moving via RM back all the NCL-instigated "people" additions on indigenous articles, and also those RMs for Canadian unique placenames-take-no-dabs per

WP:CANLIST considerably this last two weeks, including the Squamish-parallels Lillooet, Chemainus, Sechelt and Tsawwassen, among others (Comox

looks at this point as though it will close in favour of the town), and where PRIMARYTOPIC has not been shown to be the people, who themselves self-identify differently from the towns and regions which are the modern primary topic of those names.

Squamish is no different, the problem there is that any attempt to talk reason there is drowned out by ongoing attacks against me....including from those other people whose personal attacks you show no interest in replicating, only singling out my responses in the course of your attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. So that, it seems, silence will fall on discussions to reform NCET and NCL and that you and Kwami can claim that "consensus" means that those guidelines will stay the way they are.

If your intent here was simply to provoke me to more necessarily longish responses to your one-sided complaints against me, you have won. If defending myself against ongoing obstructionism and insults means that my voice has gotten sharp, it is a measure of frustration with the lack of comprehension or respect that this is all about. I know my subject material very well (which you do not, as you displayed re Squamish), and because of all the RMs required to fix what you will not, I'm getting to know guidelines pretty damned well too. Disruptive behaviour and tendentious, obstructionist conduct in discussions by your cohorts go unaddressed and uncommented upon by you, yet you make a point of continuing to defend them as if they were victims and do nothing about them and single my responses to them out. Your attempt to turn a point of mine into something else re "people" vs TWODABS somewhere seems typical; you didn't even apologize for that; changing the meaning of what someone has said I've seen lots of before, it may have been a lack of comprehension of what I had said, but given the overall pattern of picayune wikilawyering and ostructionism I am seeing and continue to see', it's me that's being victimized here, as elsewhere.

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by correcting out-of-date titles and addressing guideline issues that, frankly, the "old consensus" at IPNA did long ago until it was ignored by some who knew better; you only got here in 2009, long after Luigizanasi and Phaedriel and the others who established the conventions re titles and category names retired or went inactive. And now rather than fess up to the realities of those guidelines, you refuse to discuss them and are trying to silence their main proponent, who has been getting NCL-instigated titles corrected right and left. It is you who are not willing to properly discuss issues, not me. Instead of discuss these issues, you continue in your campaign to have me blocked and continue to be one-sided about what I say in response to ongoing obstructionism and attacking me instead of discussing the issues I raise, without ever addressing what it was that got said that I was responding to. That is tendentious, clearly hostile, and disruptive in the extreme; rather than talk to me and try to seek ground, you continue to talk about me, relentlessly, and continue to remain silent on the atrocious behaviour of Kwami and the more soft-pedalled but persistent derision from JorisV and others; it appears not only white men speak with forked tongue. Oh, is that a personal attack? I don't think it is, I think it's totally fair given your one-sidedness in this matter, your hypocrisy on "FOO people" re Squamish and re "preferred" and "unambiguous" at NCET, and the way you are indulging in your right to speak here, knowing that the TLDR mindset already heard here means that if I do speak to defend myself, that will damn me further. In other words, and per my "kangaroo court" comment above, the accused does not have a right to speak, and anything they have done will be held against them........conflated out of all context and irrelevant to the content issues those comments came from.

I've done a mammoth amount of work here, despite the campaign to systematically obstruct and, it seems, BAIT me, and during the course of this ANI, which I've been trying to ignore as t he partisan witchhunt I still maintain it to be. That you are spending more time attacking me here than actually addressing the consensus that has emerged (due to my assiduousness in pursuing these issues, item by item, guideline by guidline) speaks worlds about the contrast between "wiki-idealists" like myself and "wiki-bureaucrats" that I have seen comments on in various places.

I've tried to talk common sense and guidelines and facts and been treated with derision and insults, and by yourself the back of the hand when I try to raise issues with you; long before the NV categories thing it seems, you've had it in for me......and now, seeing my success in putting NCL on the hotseat where it belongs, overturning its false premises in RM after RM after RM, this ANI was launched against me, while you continue to refuse to discuss issues or guidelines, and Kwami continues to insult and wheedle endlessly and tries to turn my words against me, per his usual inimitable....and you take notes and come running here to report back my responses to him. I'm the one talking guidelines and better content; all you are trying to do is muzzle me so those guideline and content issues will remain unadressed....and maybe so you can go start writing those BC native-artist articles you blame me for you not starting bios on. Hmpf. Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, in Skookum's defense, that he does make a large number of valuable edits, and WP is on the whole better off for his presence. But it's no longer possible to have an intelligent, or civil, conversation with him: Any disagreement is proof of "perversion". There's one article (

• • Apparently you can't reason with someone who just doesn't know about the topic at hand, as you have just demonstrated, and who cherry picks former opinions, now changed because unlike you I actually go do some research on the topics rather than just guideline-toss without knowing anything like you do.....
  • 1) if you knew about this people and their current state, their name is adopted, as is their modern language, which is Lik'wala, the language of the Laich-kwil-tach or Lekwiltok; Island Comox as a language is dead, and these people have adopted the language of their neighbours, and the name given to them in that language; I used to think the name was a derivation of the Chinook Jargon word for dog kamuks, referring to the dog breed once raised for wool in Contact and pre-Contact times (now extinct)
  • 3) but it turns out that the name is in fact Lik'wala ("Southern Kwakiutl") and not of "Comox" origin at all (their original name in their now-dead language was Sahtloot). Which is why it is unsuitable and incorrect for the Sliammon/Tla A'min, Homalco and Klahoose (the "Mainland Comox"), who obviously have not adopted Lik'wala unlike their Island counteparts.
  • 4) K'omoks IS the native name used by this people, who explain this all on their webpage, which by your comments it appears you disdain to have read. I'm the one with local, modern expertise and aware of the complexities of the native cultural/political revival, you are the one relying on "facts" and terminologies from old books.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sanction needed. AFAICR, I first encountered Skookum1 when I was trying to help clear the CFD backlog, and spotted
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Whatever the merits of his case, his style of communication prevents consensus formation. It's not just the number of words, but the failure to structure them with sub-heads or bullet points, and the rambling mixtures of substantive points with complaints about other editors.
  Unless Skookum1 radically changes his approach, I don't see how can work collaboratively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • BHG, this last few days I've been making a point of bulleting comments or at least separating them into paragraphs as on last night's responses here; I did so also on the Squamish CfD re TITLE's and NCET's various points relating to that discussion and still got hammered and BLUDGEONed for the "walls of text" complaint.
    • 1) I have bulleted on RMs this last week, and also on the NCET guideline discussion; where instead of addressing those points, Kwami turned Cuchulains closing comment on Talk:Lillooet#Requested move on its head, claiming it agrees with him which it does not, and continuing to resist discussion by slagging me instead; distorting and misrpresenting things I've said just as he has done again immediately above.Skookum1 (talk)
    • 2) Your own bad call on the Squamish issue I will make no direct comment on here; the PRIMARYTOPIC research has been done on that title and will be addressed again in the light of a couple of dozen related and now closed/moved RMs, where I was not made the target of the decision, and what I had to say listened to, and the irrelevancy of the "oppose" votes refuted by other participants. Skookum1 (talk)

• • • 3) IMO people who don't know about a subject area who wish to dispute PRIMARYTOPICs on things and places they have no real acquaintance with should neither comment/vote nor close unless they are prepared to learn about the topic and address the issues raised. The "I don't have time to read that" cant that I'm hearing is a sorry excuse for proper discussion of encylopedia contents....I have local expertise as many have observed; this is regularly derided or, as too often the case, passed over without being read by people who, if pressed for time or a lack of effort to learn about the subject, should not be voting or closing. The mess this has created I spent a lot of time and energy trying to correct, and with a few holdouts the consensus emerging underscores all I've been saying in each and every RM and CfD.....Skookum1 (talk)

• • • 4) I've changed my style of posting, but am still being BAITed into the necessary responses against ongoing deflection and the very evident campaign to exclude me from Wikipedia altogether, as per example of Uysvdi's quoting of me last night without including the pejorative and misleading/distorted comments I was responding to. Despite Kwami's disclaimer above that he doesn't want to see me banned from Wikipedia I have good reason to doubt that as being any more honest than his persistent dishonesty and misrepresantations for a very long time now; He hasn't changed his ways, in fact he's being even more reactionary and hostile than ever, and Usyvdi continues to look for things I've said while ignoring the things said that prompted them....one-sidedness on display in extremis.....and I've just wasted another hour of my life on people who are trying to railroad me.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sanction needed Skookum does make some positive contributions but these sorts of comments are entirely unacceptable [18]. Neither can I say I found accusations against me of wikilawyering terrible positive[19][20]. If Skookum can turn down the snarkiness of his comments, and maybe make his comments more brief, than I believe he would be a positive contributor. However, the negativeness of his comments is currently obstructive.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your obstructive behaviour on various RMs, including ones now closed against your opinion, comes off as snarky itself.....and yes, you are wikilawyering, that's not an accusation that's by the definitions given on WP:Wikilawyering, using guidelines out of context and not in the spirit in which they were written. The FIFTHPILLAR "there are no rules" is violated every time someone tries to turn a single guideline point into "policy" and use it as an iron-fast rule to obstruct a needed and rightful change/reversion as you persistently are doing there, and have done in other RMs as well.Skookum1 (talk)

• • the guidelines that allowed
    Sto:lo. I'm the one talking guidelines as a whole, you're the one zeroing in on only one aspect of the title and IMO misinterpreting and abusing that guideline despite the ambibuities and dab problem of the current title.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Skookum1 is now posting even more inappropriate remarks on Jimbo's page. [21][22] —Neotarf (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have precedent, with Giano. Except that Giano's content is better and his commentary less obnoxious. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Giano and I don't know Skookum, but Giano has never gone out of his way to WP:BITE me. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban proposal for User:Skookum1

This discussion has now gone on for more than 8 days and 10,000 words. Skookum1 doesn't seem to be able to participate without massive disruptions across multiple forums. Blocks have been tried and they didn't work. The attacks continue, even as the spotlight is trained on him and even more editors continue to express their concerns. Skookum1 can't stop. I propose a site ban. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a site ban. When personal attacks are pointed out and the individual decides to ignore the problem and cast further aspersions there is no way to work with it. I believe they will be a continuing disruption and further time sink if nothing is done. I do believe an indef block should be applied. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how an indef block compares to a site ban. Can one of you say why one makes more sense than the other? In the mean time, Skookum1 keeps up the denial and attacks here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue your disruptive and tendentious opposition there and elsewhere, on topics you really know nothing about. The denials are from people such as yourself who ignore guideline citations, e.g. you calling me "tilting at guidelines" when it's a guideline you asked for, and now seek to evade addressing. This is all too typical with what's going on, including the fielding of two-word alleged PRIMARTOPICS as if valid, when the are not. That others support my proposals and also cite guidelines (that you and others ignore or seek to bypass/talk around) and also are capable of reading my writing without treating it as a criminal offence, is also well-established as fact; that RMs have been opposed by certain individuals without any basis in guidelines or actual reality apparently because it was me who proposed them hasn't stopped 95% of them from being decided in "my" favour. The accusational and adversarial environment caused by such knee-jerk opposition is the real problem herr, not me.Skookum1 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been about the requested moves, not about you; the words you quote are not mine; I have not proposed any primarytopics. Face reality, please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had no PRIMARYTOPICs to propose, then why were you claiming the obvious (to a Canadian, and others who actually read googlestats and view stats) PRIMARYTOPIC was not viable? Why are you obstructing those RMs? So that "no consensus/not moved" would be the result?Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive to Dicklyon's question, see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks. A user who is banned is not technically prevented from editing (but any edits can be deleted on sight). A user who is banned and continues to edit anyway generally ends up indef blocked. These typically go hand in hand. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the user stops commenting on contributers instead of the material the indef is easily removed. The editor is constructive for the most part, just not cordial. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If those contributors have done "bad things" in the course of misapproprating titles as they have been doing, it's perfectly valid to criticize them and call them on their actions, and also on their obstructiveness/disruptiveness. I'm the one whose personality is under attack here, on the basis of (alleged) personality alone. Your comment is just more one-sided tub-thumping.Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neotarf's proposal "The attacks continue, even as the spotlight is trained on him and even more editors continue to express their concerns." And the evasions of guidelines and attempts to block RMs continue, the disruptive behaviour is coming from the mob of oppositioinists who opposed just to oppose, without substance. And more and more editors also voice to me their support in the face of the atmosphere of witchhunt that is going down and the ongoing and persistently disruptive campaign against needed and valid RMs is the real "time sink" that this has taken. Harassing me officially in order to stop me from posting such RMs is the real agenda here.Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are certainly issues with Skookum1's inability to avoid major drama when dealing with those he disagrees with, but leaping to a site ban from no current block whatsoever is the "cart before the horse". He can be blocked if he cannot drop the diva persecution stance, but no site ban is needed at this time. Blaming everyone else for your conflicts is all well and good, but hardly realistic. Doc talk 05:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Doc9871. During the past 2.5 years, he appears to have been blocked only once, and that was for only 48 hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also a disturbing loophole in

  WP:3RRNO when it comes to even thinking about banning someone with as many prolific positive contributions as this user. It says under #3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." The first part of the instruction surely seems to indicate that any user who has subsequently become banned can have all of their edits reverted by anyone at anytime, regardless of whether those edits were good or not. That's around 82,000 edits since 2005 that would suddenly be eligible for deletion were he to be community banned, 60% of them in article space. Community bans are for the worst of the worst. The extreme measure of a community ban should be carefully considered. Doc talk 09:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong Oppose - I would generally oppose a ban proposal that is put forward by one side of the dispute. Banning someone for verbosity is entirely inappropriate. Getting Skookum off their pedestal is one thing, but unleashing a wrecking ball to knock him off is overkill. Blackmane (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AN/I was initiated due to nonstop personal attacks (all well documented above), which have continued throughout the process despite repeated warnings from a range of individuals, not verbosity. There has to be a compromise between doing nothing (current situation) and a site ban. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Your conflations of criticisms of actions and words in violation of guidelines as alleged "NPA" has been biased all along; you always don't include the personal attacks and obstructionism I encountered in each case; said personal attacks being something you very evidently tolerate on a very partisan basis; and my comments in return were well-deserved, including your very rude "Get a life!" edit comment when deleting my attempt to broach you double standard on the "FOO people" issue, i.e. your aggressive and untoward re-creation of the Category:Squamish and your attempt to coopt the main category Category:Squamish people to conform to your point that "FOO people" is for "people who are FOO".

I continue to work on articles and also on the RMs of the same kind I have been regularly opposed, whether by Kwami or others, with Kwami tossing out regular NPAs and somewhere Maunus stating the very AGF "we can't take Skookum1's word for it", even though it was concerning a topic area in which I am one of the main contributors and wiki-experts. You want "compromise"? Why don't you back off and stop with the DEADHORSE routine? You continue to rant against me, and look for contributions/discussion comments you can come running back with here to rail at me yet again. I have supporters on Jimbo's talkpage, about the "he has no right to speak here" cant that is a feature of this ANI, and also other support in the face of "the trolls" has also been voiced, and "Wikipedia needs you", also;

My rights to criticize the unfairness of this process, and your own hypocrisy and partisanship, and the "lynch mob" mentality seen in the relentless personal criticism here, when I've been arguing guidelines and consensus which you yourself refuse to discuss. Banning me is an extreme measure; the compromise is to

WP:DISENGAGE

which I have been trying to do, other than replying here to yet-another-conflation and one-sided cherrypicking and talking of my UserContributions..........I'm the one trying to be CIVIL and being met by hostility over and over and over again (including copy-pastes of derisive comments in the course of "oppose" votes)

Suppressing free speech? Is that what you are wanting to do? That I can't speak my mind in face of overt hostility and one-sided and out-of-context links to my responses to ongoing NPA and AGF, including from you, seems to be what you want; that I should humble myself and tone down my discussion of guidelines that have been violated, and actions taken to disrupt their proper implementation (including NPA and AGF comments in the RMs, right and left)..... that any criticism of bad actions, and dishonest ones as was sometimes the case, is automatically branded "NPA" without any action taken in regard to the NPAs made against ME - and what you want is to censor me, to shut me up?? To stop me from fielding RMs and trying to discuss guidelines that are much in need of review; I'm not the one who is being "disruptive" and "tendentious" by comparison, not by a long shot.

"Some action must be taken" could start with your own acknowledgement of the highly productive results of the RMs I have filed, and incorporating them into your wiki-view or "right action". I have been harassed by the people my responses above you have cited, and persistently by yourself, here and elsewhere. There is no reason to ban me, I'm out in the trenches doing constructive work despite the "time sink" of endless procedures which have been dragged out needlessly based on spurious and unsubtantiated and anti-guideline PRIMARYTOPIC disputes, and defending myself here. You have resisted working with me, insulted me in the course of that resistance, and now are positing my responses to people who have regularly insulted and badgered/obstructed me as if I were the only guilty party. It's not me who's the DIVA here, in my estimation. Skookum1 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "we can't take Skookum1's word for it" — no one takes anyone's word for anything here. Cited sources are necessary for articles, and diffs are required here. I've furnished over a dozen diffs of your personal attacks, and others, including yourself, have provided more examples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I can't remember just now where Maunus said that, but it was on a BC topic or BC indigenous topic of some kind....that is a direct AGF statement, and totally out of line since I've been here since 2005 and my known expertise in topics in my region is well established (as others will attest, and my editing record will demonstrate amply). That may have been in reference to the "old consensus", which if not for this ongoing harassment I would have drafted up by now on the IPNA talkpage or a sandbox thereof, and in which I took part, including in the establishment of indigenous categories in BC and elsewhere, and in title-format discussions; why would I have reason to make such a thing up? You are being every bit as AGF as that comment; why should you be believed? It's time for you to

WP:DISENGAGE, Uyvsdi, and go start those native-artist biographies you blame me for you not starting; more AGF.Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Uyvsdi, going between one extreme to another is not beneficial. It is generally acknowledged that Skookum1 does good work but does have issues in a few areas. Drawing a line in the sand benefits nobody. Seriously, Skookum1, please dial back on the verbosity of your posts. Personally, I make a point of reading as much, if not everything, of what an editor writes as I can, but even that tendency gets exhausted eventually. Blackmane (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I've had firsthand experience with Skookum1's combative editing and sense of ownership over some topics. While it is disheartening to see that he hasn't change much in 3+ years, a site ban is way too drastic of a measure for a editor who does make (overall) worthwhile contributions to the project. Does Skookum1 need to dial it back some and, perhaps, accept some mentoring and help towards dealing with editors of differing viewpoints in a more diplomatic fashion? Of course. But lets try to go the rehabilitation route more earnestly before unleashing the ban hammer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose site bans outside of arbitration in principle. Surely there must be other ways to resolve the situation. It's not like we have an abundance of otherwise productive editors to start banning them because no one seems to be able/willing to resolve one or a couple of individual disputes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2014; 18:23 (UTC)
  • In the Okanagan Valley wine region case, there was a POV/COI SPA editor (oh was that you, Agne?) who was trying to rewrite North American geography so that wine region bumpf about itself would seem correct (claiming that the Sonoran Desert reached the Okanagan Valley rather than stopping at the Colorado River like it does in the real world. I've had way too much experiences with SPAs, be they a Sinixt activist who was edit-warring to remove all mention of the Ktunaxa on topics re their disputed/shared territory, political hacks seeking to have me thrown out for getting in the way of their POV/SOAP actions on political bios, or Haida supporters attempting to "OWN" Haida content; in the case of the Okanagan Valley it was not me trying to OWN BC Geography, but insisting it be described correctly, not using wine-industry press releases in travel magazines (as Agne did) as if there were valid RS on geography. Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sigh I have no interest in rehashing 3 yr old disputes (especially with an editor who seems to not know what

WP:SPA means). I still oppose a site ban for Skookum1 but I would hope (perhaps naively) that the chorus of editors who have raised red flags about his behaviors would give him reason to pause and reassess his behavior. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There's also a chorus of editors who support me and find the TLDR ranting and one-sided persecution of alleged/conflated NPAs in the context of the NPAs and AGF behaviour towards me abhorrent; and per your attempts to rewrite BC geography according to wine industry bumpf, and your claims on that debate that you were not COI, amounted to

WP:DUCK and were very, very POV vs what is actually in geography texts; Osoyoos' spurious claim to be the "northern tip of the Sonoran Desert" was hogwash, but you warred over this extensively.Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. The fact that he writes a lot in discussions and others find it hard to read is not a good reason to site ban anybody. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just a reminder, this AN/I has nothing to do with verbosity and was initiated due to nonstop personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Well, gee, then why was TLDR and "walls of text" brought up so much? the "nonstop personal attacks" were coming from your friends who you portray as victims here; I am only responding to them, and as CambridgeBayWeather has pointed out, mounting frustration at the obtuse and oppositional "arguments" thrown to try to block RMs is where my responses are coming from. "Nonstop personal attacks" - there is a difference between calling someone "idiotic", "ridiculous" and "no one would accuse you of being rational" (all Kwami, here portrayed as victim) and criticizing someone's ideas, behaviour and their failure to address guidelines. Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Ridiculous proposal. Straight out of Lord of the Flies. Absolutely nothing wrong with this productive editor, other than the objections of some to his verbosity, which last I knew was not a lynchable offense... Carrite (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is far too harsh a sanction at this point in time, but I hope Skookum can take this criticism to heart and get serious about
  commenting on content (and arguments) rather than contributors. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Too much like a witch hunt.
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support. I am proposing this as I believe in escalating blocks and a little time a way may do some good. The amount of time based on inputs can of course be modified. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Judging by what I am seeing here, User:Skookum1 has indeed made constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. However, as of recently something may have happened - he is reportedly becoming more hostile to other editors, launching
  personal attacks like fireworks in the sky. A lot of things can happen to one's personality - a concussion, mental illness, disease, surgery, stress, etc. Normally I am opposed to cool-down blocks as they usually have the opposite effect, but it seems like we have no other option. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • re "reportedly", I found this quote from Mark Twain today which is very, very apt - this is politics after all:
    • <wikiquote>"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."</wikiquote>

• We don't do punitive or "cool-down" blocks here, nor do we arbitrarily pick a block length out of a hat to appease those who really want him site banned. If he levies a personal attack that any admin (and many are watching, obviously) sees justification for a block, he or she will apply one. Doc talk 01:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, do you people ever turn things on their head,and seem to not own any mirrors to take a look at yourselves with; NPAs and AGF behaviour and obstructive (=tendential, disruptive) actions against/towards me is what prompted my responses that you are now saying are "like fireworks in teh sky". And this an outright personality attack - "A lot of things can happen to one's personality - a concussion, mental illness, disease, surgery, stress, etc." Supposition and imputation and very very very AGF. That comment is out of order and constitutes extreme AGF and NPA. Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment is out of order and constitutes extreme AGF and NPA. I'm the one fielding legitimate RMs and being treated with AGF and NPA in return...now especially here.Skookum1 (talk)

• Comment re one-week block A "one week block" or "escalating blocks" is punishing me on behalf of those inflicting NPA and AGF at ME. And your word "reportedly" in "reportedly becoming more hostile to other editors" is taking someone's word for it without even looking at the context; believing the bully is easy to do. "It seems like we have no other option" - oh yes, you do, you can shut this farce of a persecution down and tell Uyvsdi to debate issues raised, not continue to harass me while painting the aggressive and hostile editors as victims. This whole ANI is a victimization and extremely one-sided and biased; your "reportedly" indicates that you believe that I have been "escalating"..... do you just make this stuff up, or do you just believe what you're told by somebody who clearly is grinding an axe who doesn't herself do "proper discussion" and in fact refuses to? The option you have is to
  WP:DISENGAGE and let me get on with my wiki-work without any further harassment.Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See this is why I think you need a step back. Instead of Ad hom attacks you could have been concise supplying diffs and kept your cool. Instead you continue to insist that everyone else is the problem and you are doing nothing wrong. You can be a great contributer but you also must be a great collaberator which requires more civility. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also lack of difs are a big problem in most of your posts. I counted every single dif you posted and only three were not direct links to articles. If you want people to have evidence you need to present evidence. When someone's behavior is called into question it isn't the responsibility of third parties to go digging through various articles and talk pages to try and locate any of the information you expounded upon. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re abuse of TLDR I've been reading TLDR and its talkpage btw....very, very interesting about the ways it can be used and especially the way it is abused. It's not supposed to be used in regard to talkpage discussions in particular; and it is not policy. Oh, if you want some more criticism that can be claimed/conflated as NPAs, you'll find me on that talkpage now, also. There's some choice bits from several editors about it being unCIVIL but I won't quote them here; they're "TLDR"Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:TPYES is an editing guideline, which says "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood". Adding 135,252 characters to a single discussion is the opposite of "concise". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support 1 week cool-down block The litany of cites and testimony from a wide range of editors shows a long term pattern of aggressive and combative behavior. This doesn't erase all the quality work that Skookum1 has contributed to the encyclopedia but it does, sadly, detract from those contributions. As far as I can tell, looking at Skookum1 history, he has never really been seriously called out for his uncivil and combative behavior--at least not on the scale of this AN/I thread. Therefore, it is far too hasty to jump straight to a site ban but an escalating block and a one-week cool down seems very appropriate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a waste of time for everyone. It is still continuing on Jimbo's page as well. [23] What does it take to shut it down. —Neotarf (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, that was two days ago. What does it take to shut it down? Stop harrassing me and whining about valid criticisms of this process, and of its instigator....
    WP:DISENGAGE as I have pointed out is the valid course of action; and Uyvsdi can go write those articles on native artists from BC she claims I am the reason preventing her from doing so.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "Whining"? "Harrassing"? This type of discourse is unacceptable. This user continues to make remarks that are uncivil and unsupportable. And April 10 is not "two days" after April 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotarf (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 April 2014
• Oppose Skookum may ramble, and he is certainly being his own worst enemy at these venues, but I'd hardly call much of what is being offered up here as personal attacks. Some people need to grow a thicker skin to collaborate in what is not always a happy-dandy environment (and no, that is not a personal attack :P). Conversely, editors need to remind themselves that they should try to keep a happy-dandy environment and not go on tirades over how your good intentions have been wronged. There's only so many times you can say "But they did this and this and this to me" before it becomes whining. That said, as someone who has been stonewalled severely over a premise that I was knowledgeable in (crown copyright, which has since gone on to result in the URAA being disavowed on Commons), repeatedly, and seemingly without end over a two year period, I can sympathize. A block won't solve anything, it'll just increase the mounting frustration. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block (but not ban): Skookum1 has, in this discussion, utterly
  refused to listen to any of the concerns that anybody has about him, and instead continues to insist that it's everybody else's fault and that he is being persecuted. His behavior in this thread alone, above and beyond his commentary elsewhere, is an indicator that he is unable or unwilling to contribute to the encyclopedia in a collegial manner. This isn't something that a fixed-length block will fix: this is why "indefinite is not infinite", and a block until he is willing or able to contribute in a cooperative manner is what is needed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Kwami and Uysvdi and JorisV are the ones not acting in a "cooperative manner"..... I've been fielding RMs, not moving things arbitrarily without discussion; that they obstruct RMs needed to correct their moves is very disruptive and tendentious. They are the ones not acting "collegially". My comments to BHG about using TLDR as a policy which it is not in discussions applies to you as well; that you would make TLDR a focus of discussion comments is against what TLDR itself says and is abuse of that essay. A lot of you here really need to fully read the essays and guidelines and have a really long look in the mirror.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide diffs of TLDR being used as a policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, with escalation as needed. This discussion started because of personal attacks, but the TLDR walls of text have become an issue too, and they have been repeated here at ANI. AFAICS, the underlying problem is a serious one, illustrated in several posts by Skookum1, but I'll just take one as an example, from elsewhere on this page: Skookum1 tells us that "I'm the one with local, modern expertise and aware of the complexities of the native cultural/political revival, you are the one relying on "facts" and terminologies from old books".
  This is a direct rejection of
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please explain, as an Irish person living in Ireland, what business you had closing RMs on PRIMARYTOPIC issues you are not qualified to comment on or judge, and where you ignored the evidence and counted a specious "oppose" vote in quantitatively counting votes vs qualitative examination of what they were saying and whether they were valid or not? I wouldn't presume to weigh in on PRIMARYTOPIC for Irish topics. That you used TLDR as a reason to negatively close one of the Squamish RMs or CfDs or whichever it was as if it were a policy was misprocedure (you should really read TLDR, especially the bits about how it is abused by applying it to discussions rather than articles); I'm not the one violating how Wikipedia is supposed to work, you are.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1, a closing admin's task is to weigh the consensus of the editors who participated in a discussion, by assessing the balance of views and how well they are founded in policy. If the closing admin has any expertise in the topic, they should leave it at the door, because applying it to the closure amounts to a

WP:SUPERVOTE

.

You have made it quite clear that you didn't like my close of

WP:SUPERVOTE

".

You should also read

WP:TPYES, which tells editors to "be concise", because "long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood". That guideline is particularly relevant to an XFD where you wrote more words than are usually found in a Masters Degree thesis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And just noting that your post was of the same length as you screamed/condemned "TLDR" for in the course of closing a discussion by targeting me as the reason for the negative close; not reading what I had to say was just ignorant and, as noted, as someone in Ireland with no knowledge of British Columbia or the indigenous topics concerned, you were out of line.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IDHT and (particularly) NOTHERE are very subjective reasons to block someone. There's a lot of "wiggle room", if you will, and it's wide open to interpretation. When it's not abundantly clear to everyone that an editor is so disruptive that they must be blocked, other options exist. Weighing this user's contributions against his block log[24], I do not think that he is close to the level of disruption warranting an indef. Certainly no one has to "like" him and want to be his best buddy; this isn't a social networking site. Carefully considering the "mitigating factors" of an editor when seeking an indefinite block is, IMHO, very important. A one week block would be a punitive "time-out" block at this point. How about a RfC/U? Doc talk 04:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why not an RfC on the mass of obstructive and groundless "oppose" votes and dissembling of discussions as on the NCET talkpage?Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how an RFC/U would bring out much that hasn't already been revealed. In general, RFCU is a good idea, but in this case Skookum1 has already explained the underlying problem, and a RFC/U is likely to only increase the pressure he feels under as a result of it. That pressure has been vocally expressed by Skooukm1 in this thread. So in this case, I think that an RFCU would makes it less likely that Skookum1 will stay here as a productive and collaborative editor, and more likely that continued outbursts and walls of text will lead to emergency admin action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"walls of text" like TLDR, is only an essay not a policy. I've tried to collaborate but have been treated as uninformed and not welcome, instead I have been harassed, insulted, and now am having a necktie party held in my "honour". Your abuse of TLDR and calling my explanations/rebuttals "outbursts" is entirely specious and partisan.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR is an essay and editors are never blocked for TLDR, however they are blocked for TLDR to the point of disruption. Skookum1, the more you post, the more you make out that you are your own worst enemy and the saddest thing is that you just don't see it. Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Just back the hell off and leave him alone. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Carrite, there's a few people here that "get it" and understand the difficulties I'm having with obstinacy and repetitive, anti-guideline persecution like what is going on here. There are enough people alienated from Wikipedia by the in-group attack-mode here in ANI and as seen in too many RMs and CfDs. I'm trying to do constructive work and am being attacked by those who are not doing constructive work, but only wish to complain about someone who points out their own faults and faulty decisions/misquotations of guidelines. The "time sink" that has resulted is not of my doing.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'm trying to do constructive work and am being attacked by those who are not doing constructive work" - An interesting comment that shows a distinct lack of checking what work the people being attacked by Skookum1 are doing. Such as making and expanding articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – but longer would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Personal attacks are entirely unacceptable in a collaborative setting. Even when it's pointed out to this user that what they are writing could be construed as uncivil they remain unrepentant[25]. It's this sort of behaviour that scares away new users or others from participating.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Theoretically, we don't do
  editing restriction similar to the one imposed on Born2cycle last year, allowing uninvolved admins to ban him from particular discussions. He would be wise to keep his comments concise and not targeted at specific editors. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. But I fear everyone will just be back here when the block expires, since the user doesn't seem to get it. I find this user's public meltdown painful to watch. Is there no one who can explain it to them privately? —Neotarf (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would consider a counter proposal to block them all, including
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oh, so you don't have any problem with abusing editors? Have you ever thought of becoming an admin? Or better yet, go over to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, explain how personal attacks are so useful, and get the policy changed. —Neotarf (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review [26] and [27] which I believe are blatant attempts to squelch discussion of accurate article improvements because of political implications. EllenCT (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree that Cadiomals has no business deleting your talk page comments. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No business eh? I suggest you read

WP:NOTFORUM thoroughly and tell me what part of her post mentioned improvements to the article and that it isn't an attempt at general "forum" discussion. That is justification for removing the post altogether. That is all I have to comment on this non-issue. She has done this on the Talk page before ([as well as bringing a dispute here before, in which she was swiftly rebuked) and shown her total lack of understanding of many Wiki policies. It won't be tolerated as we desire a Talk page with continuous discussion on improving the article itself as per the guidelines, and not a place for her petty political discussion/debate. It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor who has not removed most of her posts and only done this twice when it was clearly a violation. Any and all qualified Wikipedia administrators will back me up on this. You do not appear to be an admin. Cadiomals (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The linked discussion says, "the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like [an] attempt" but Cadiomals has defended VictorD7's unsupported assertions that US taxes are progressive. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of EllenCT's disruptive editing. This isn't the proper forum for a content dispute, much less one where she makes false claims. Every source presented supports the fact that US taxation is progressive, including her own source of choice. Her own comment here starts by conceding that they're at least somewhat progressive (rather than regressive, like European taxation), before closing by implying the opposite. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no peer reviewed

WP:SECONDARY sources which support the assertion that US tax incidence is anything other than regressive at the high income brackets that User:VictorD7 so incessantly attempts to portray otherwise, and he knows it. This repeated insertion of paid advocacy must end. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Loads of sources refuting everything you've said (including your own few sources, which you didn't understand) have been presented and several are being used, but this isn't the place for a drawn out off topic content discussion. I've never been the type to run to admin and tell, but if you falsely accuse me one more time of being paid to edit I'll look into the rules on that, because I'm confident that leveling such baseless charges is a rule violation that can result in sanctions. VictorD7 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the edit. Blanking sections per
  WP:FRINGE articles and want to share their views on creationism (and even there, a gentle nudge is often more helpful and less pointy). Blanking a discussion between experienced editors on what appears to be a topic relevant to the article.... probably a bad idea. Edit warring over it is definitely a bad idea. And at this point, I'll let the admins take over. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is the same as my reply to you on my Talk page but I will copy-paste it here for others to see. @

WP:NOTFORUM may not be everyone's interpretation, as the guideline is not just used against new editors and can/has been used to discourage unproductive or off-topic discussion or argument on contentious articles. I will leave your revert until an admin resolves this non-issue but if you had actual context you would know it was a mistake. Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Except her post didn't mention the article or contain a proposal for improvements, her links were to a political talking point that has nothing to do with the article, and her section title didn't even accurately describe it. That's on top of her well documented history of disruptive editing on multiple articles and talk pages (including that one). Context matters. VictorD7 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VictorD7: isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive, because they assume that corporate income taxes are not passed on to customers? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, and doesn't it violate a rule for you to level such a preposterous and false personal accusation? Not only am I not paid by PGPF, but they aren't used as a source for any "statements"; just a graph they created based on Tax Policy Center data, which you know full well. It was more convenient than drawing one from scratch. As for your description of taxes, multiple editors have patiently spent paragraphs and hours of their lives explaining the basics to you, including what your own sources say, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the context of her other editing that is disruptive/forum-like (I don't know whether it is or not, you'd have to produce diffs). On the face of it her post is ambiguous as to whether

WP:FORUM applies. It literally doesn't suggest a change to the article, but normally, AGF, one would assume it's implicit what the impact for the article would be. I don't know enough about the topic/talk page background whether that's so here. So, I think those that want the reverts to stand need to post diffs of the context. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I would say a good rule of thumb is: don't. It pisses people off. It does nothing to reduce conflict. It increases edit warring. We are not trying to build some idealized society. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, and an off topic comment or two is much more sustainable with that than conflict over said comments' removal.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt is correct. Trying to enforce FORUM on a user's talk page is almost always a bad idea. To enforce it strictly here would mean we have to enforce it strictly on everyone's page, which is a nightmare. We give tremendous latitude on how a user uses their talk page. I've been known to talk about what I did this weekend, or my opinion of something else that I"m not directly editing. A degree of socialization is tolerated and can actually be helpful. If you think something needs deleting on a user talk page because it is "borderline" (not vandalism or a personal attack, which is obvious, but FORUM or similar), ask an admin or uninvolved experienced editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This happened at Talk:United States, not somebody's user talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the one comment then. Still, FORUM is not a policy that is strictly policed for good cause. Doing so causes more drama than tolerating a little side discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The diffs shown do not show an appropriate enforcement of WP:FORUM. Regardless of Dennis's very good point that we DO in fact give people latitude as regards posts, these comments were not in any way forum posts. DeCausa points out the level of literal thinking (and in my view
  rules lawyering) needed to consider these posts in that way.
  As regards enforcing WP:FORUM a warning within the thread should be given FIRST to note that it is straying off topic. If after that warning the forum posting continues then it could be appropriate to "hat" or "collapse" a discussion. But at this point in wikipedia culture, deletion is rarely acceptable for good faith posts anywhere (except on one's own talk page and even then it can be considered rude). Only clearly and unambiguously disruptive posts should be deleted and there again only when they have not been replied to (except in the most extreme cases).
  It might be an idea to template:trout Cadiomals but unless there is clear evidence of a pattern here the allegation of political censorship is just about as unhelpful as Cadiomals's deletion of the comments. I'd suggest both users should take a step back and try to extend an olive branch to the other party--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:TALK. But it was just the links, so I interpreted that as attempting forum discussion. In the past she made a more obvious violation by whining about other editors (not just me) on an article Talk page. I removed her post, she complained here and the admins backed me up, so that probably encouraged me to do it a second time. For the future I will just have to tolerate her little side discussions as long as it won't affect the actual article's content. Cadiomals (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Better approach to something like Talk:United_States#Health_by_political_preference is to simply and succinctly ask "What changes to the article are you suggesting?" NE Ent 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reagardless United States is not a good place to be discussing the advantages or disadvantages of each political party and I'd suggest that anyone doing so is indeed pushing a POV worth ANI's investigation.--v/r - TP 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that concerned administrators contact the editorial board of Social Science and Medicine to ask their opinion of whether encyclopedia editors have any reason to disagree with the publication in question. EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what your putting in, EllenCT, it's where you are putting it. The article, United States, covers political parties in general from a overview. It does not cover what they believe other than calling one center-left and center-right. If you are using that article to bash a political party, that's POV pushing in an inappropriate place. We are not going to fill every nook and cranny of Wikipedia with political bashing.--v/r - TP 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. EllenCT (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

More evidence that you're incapable of neutral editing. But first, your bringing up my job and my opinion is a veiled doxing threat, please don't do it again. Regarding the rest, I haven't at all argued whether there is "variation in health by political preference". This isn't even about that. If you were capable of putting your POV behind you, you could see that. This is about where on Wikipedia you are pushing that and whether it is an appropriate location. United States is not an appropriate location.--v/r - TP 00:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are members of the US military required to be politically neutral on questions of such political import pertaining to US political parties? Why do you imply that I have been holding my personal opinions over the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature reviews? Why should a summary report about United States demographics and health considering one of the most important questions, the effect of political preference on health, not be in the United States article? EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as you are concerned, I'm an editor on this site and not representing the military. And for your information, no we are not required to stay politically neutral. We can't attend political rallies in uniform but out of uniform, like the disclaimer on my talk page clearly demonstrates my editing to be, we can have an opinion, vote, and participate in elections just like every other citizen. Do not continue to try to link my real life job with my edits or I'll be seeking a block for you for a doxing threat. Why should United States not include the content you are trying to add? Because it's outside the scope of that article. That article is a general overview of many different issues in the United States. Painting black eyes on political parties is outside of that scope and better suited in articles about those parties or about health in the United States. If we included every scrap bit of information about the United States in that article, we'd be smashing nearly 40% of the entirety of Wikipedia in one single article. It's outside of the scope.--v/r - TP 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You list your military affiliation and rank, and display your uniform insignia, on your user page above your Wikipedia role descriptions and all your other userboxes -- and you claim you are not representing the military here. Then you threaten to block me for doxing when referring to that information which you put on your userpage. Can you see why that might not seem entirely consistent to an outside observer? What other demographic factors affecting the health of a country do you believe should be excluded from articles about those countries? Just the ones that show a difference between political preference outcomes, or is there a wider principle about scope that you are applying here? EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not on your userpage that you like horses? You are a student of economics? People explain who they are on their talk page. However, your language suggests you intend to contact my employement, my boss, and tell him that I'm representing a political position from a military perspective. First off, my boss already knows I edit Wikipedia, I've had to get clearance to travel abroad of Wikimania Berlin and some of the other wiki-related activities I've participated in. Second off, the disclaimer on my user page is a directive from Air Force social media guidelines which requires that we make it clear that we are not representing the military on here. I don't edit on behalf of the military or represent it while I am here. It is listed on my user page because it is who I am and I'm proud of it. That doesn't mean it can be used to threaten me. And whether or not my superiors are aware of my editing, making implied threats that you believe I am not acting in accordance to regulations with the implied threat of contacting them over it is a doxxing threat. You continue doing that and you'll see how quick you'll be banned. The only thing that should be covered in the health section of the United States article is general information about our healthcare system, major problems like obesity, and how we compare to other countries on a national level. That's what that article deals with, national-wide issues. When you start breaking it down to state-by-state or party-by-party, you've gone outside the scope. On top of all of that, your continuance to not get it is really bordering on

WP:TE. I'll probably be the first to call for a topic ban for you next time you're at ANI. And if I am not first, I'll sure as hell support such a motion. You just refuse to see past your own POV. Everyone here is tired of arguing with you. Straighten up, quit pushing your POV, or get the hell out.--v/r - TP 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you think I would complain to your boss? I said I didn't want Congress to allow spending money to enforce the conduct restrictions to which you refer. That means I want you to be able to express beliefs consistent with the peer reviewed corroborated findings that there are different health outcomes from different political preferences. The determination is apparently greater than obesity is as a risk factor, so that isn't going to cut it for your approved scope restrictions. Why do you think the founders chose federated states over a single national legislature? All of them are on record as wanting the benefit of the natural experiments of trying different laws in different states and publishing the outcomes. What do you think Thomas Paine would say if he knew you were threatening people for trying to publish those outcomes? EllenCT (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off, we don't 'publish' things. But that's a technicality. I never said you couldn't 'publish' it. I said you had to do it in an appropriate location.

Health care politics, Health insurance in the United States. There are a half dozen articles right there that would be WAY more appropriate for the material you are trying to add than United States.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to chuckle at this. The support for this is politically motivated mapping and your strong beliefs, arguably correlation without causation. As an example, there are people out there that argue bras cause breast cancer. But because someone makes the case, does not make it so. Since you're often keen on primary source material, I'd suggest you see what the scientific literature says about this.Mattnad (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you tried to imply that causation wasn't confirmed in the secondary peer reviewed sources, you let me prove I could find in a matter of hours what you said you hadn't been able to find in years. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... coming back to your old saw, and I quote, that "government spending on tuition subsidies pays for itself many times over." You never did provide a source that even came close to stating that.Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those sources proves it's true, unless you assume that the income tax tables aren't

WP:CK. Here's a story published just today that illustrates it quite clearly. What are the reasons you have to doubt it? EllenCT (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Not going to debate you on this here (not the place), but your all your source says is that often, but not always, a degree has a positive ROI for the individual. It does not however say that government tuition subsidies have a positive ROI as a whole. If you want to bring it up again, there are those discussion thread on Government spending and Progressive tax where the editors took you to task on your past efforts. Mattnad (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are debating, inasmuch as making stuff up because you want it to be true and then pretending it is actually true could be considered a debate strategy. Summaries discuss aggregate general truths, not specific details, and writing an encyclopedia involves summarizing. Nobody has ever produced a whit of evidence that the statement is not supported by the sources, including you and all your buddies who continually "take me to task" because you don't like the fact that I look things up in the library instead of the collected works of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. EllenCT (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mattnad brought it up, I would like administrators to please review

This page isn't supposed to be some sort of wandering fishing expedition. If you want to start another ANI topic section about different editors and other pages go ahead. Personally, I feel that Morphh has shown a pretty good understanding of Wikipedia and

WP:SYNTH. I'd suggest staying on topic here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I recommend a topic ban preventing User:Cadiomals, User:VictorD7, User:Mattnad, User:Morphh, and User:Capitalismojo from editing articles on economics, politics, demography, or geographic political divisions until such time as they can show that they have an understanding of the Wikipedia rules which they show they do not understand above. EllenCT (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks you doth protest too loudly, EllenCT. Looking briefly at your contribs,you seem to not understand what improper synthesis of sources means, and based on what you are trying to introduce, it seems you definitely have a POV to push. Just because something is sourced, that doesn't mean it is appropriate to include. Otherwise, we would have to include every crackpot theory that any decent newspaper mentions in every science and politics article. That is NOT what an encyclopedia does, and we aren't here to be a platform for any political philosophy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To which of my statements pertaining to synthesis do you refer? If the reliable sources support 1+1=2, but there are factions paying for inclusion of 1+1=3 and 1+1=4, that doesn't mean 1+1=3 is right and should be included, it means 1+1=2 should be included and the controversy should be described in terms of who is paying to deny the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• They alert you when your name is mentioned: I just have to say, it's both funny and sad that she is actually serious about wanting sanctions against those people who keep her heavy bias in check and thinks she'll be taken seriously when her contribution history is out there for everyone to see that she is
  WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so incredible that there are so many fascist nazi Hitlers on here keeping poor little Ellen from spreading the Truth! "Until such time as they can show that they have an understanding of the Wikipedia rules"–sigh...the irony. Cadiomals (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Would love to see noticeboard actually review this and see the

WP:TE editing. Morphh ^(talk) 01:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

[Own comment on the above proposal removed] Iselilja (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that is a personal attack, do you not? Perhaps you should find a better way of communicating. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it very weird that an administrator find that it is my behaviour that is the problem here. Iselilja (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else's misbehavior doesn't excuse making a personal attack on anyone, it is that simple. It was unnecessary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed it. Iselilja (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a personal attack to call someone a randroid, why is it POV pushing to point out that the reliable sources don't support Rand's followers' tenets? EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you didn't even consider "bible-thumper" to be an insult isn't lost on me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An incivility ban on Cadiomals would cetainly get my vote. Is there such a thing? When I first read this by Cadiomals, I lauged out loud: "It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor" Characterizing someone as "petty" and "whining" is neither respectful nor cooperative, nor is condescension. Neither is sarcasm like this: "It is so incredible that there are so many fascist nazi Hitlers on here keeping poor little Ellen from spreading the Truth! " Howunusual (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the last several months, and on and off dating back least as far back as April 2013, editors

Other eyes would be more than welcome. Brews has received no support and rejected attempts to help him over multiple articles (the most recent being the very patient work of Pfhorrest on the

WP:Synth several times when Brews first made a failed attempt to change the definition of Philosophy (that debate with multiple editors itself deserves examination) I've run out of patience. I really wish someone could get Brews to listen and he has time and ability but will not abide by policy and is incapable of working with other editors unless they agree with him ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This is exactly the behavior pattern that caused the Arbcom to ban Brews_ohare "indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed." So he picked his next-favorite topic area... Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His choice of topics, (free will, meta-meta-physics, etc.) could also be read as a response to the ban itself and, force of nature that he is, even a direct result... I agree it's exactly the same behavior. Say what one will about it being insufferable, it is being tolerated outside of physics. I hate to say it but if the physics editors need some pointers in coping, we've got that down to a science. So I appeal to Brews, go get you some physics/free-will and us some relief.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint is brought by a numbered account, a non-participant in the matters raised, and with no record of substantial contribution to articles on WP, or of engaging in any serious talk page discussion over content. Although

WP:SYN haven been asserted on occasion in Talk- page discussions between Snowded and myself, such claims have never been supported, and all such claims have been abandoned upon challenge. The basic issue, as noted, is content, and a preference by some editors for insisting upon personal views rather than discussing sources. As Wikipedians are aware, it is pretty non-controversial to report what a source says, while getting WP editors to agree about each others' opinions is hard. However, many WP editors prefer their own judgment, and simply refuse to deal with sources. Driving discussion toward consideration of sources is like herding cats, and some WP editors find contradiction of their beliefs, even if opposition is reliably sourced, to be irritating, especially where an editor is somewhat inarticulate or is unable to locate supporting documents. Irritation leads some to avoid support of their beliefs using sources, or logic, and instead to resort to dubious means to quash an impending confrontation with reality. However, WP is written by non- experts, and appeals to personal expertise are denied, replaced by reference to reliable sources. So sourcing is a sine qua non of talk-page discussion about content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure what prompted the OP to include me. I think my last interaction with either Snowded or BrewsOhare was 9 months ago in a discussion between just Snowded and me. I didn't think there was any hope for agreement so I ended the discussion.[28] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked some more and found an interaction I had with both Snowded and BrewsOhare 8 months ago.[29] In my message there of 18:35, 6 August 2013, I tried to give Snowded and BrewsOhare the following advice, "A discussion between only the two editors doesn't seem to be making progress towards agreement, and seems pointless. It may be that there are no other editors who wish to get involved. For situations like this in the future, the two editors might try to reach some general understanding about what to do when they disagree on an issue and no other editors are interested in getting involved." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that this started as a content issue. But it became disruptive editing when, after having had his contributions removed or declined and the reasons explained to him, he has persisted to disregard policy and continued trying to insert original research across multiple articles. He understands the policies, he just disagrees with them, so much that he has tried to change policy to match his way of editing. Having had these rejected and explained again to him he continues to edit as if policy doesn't apply, ignoring editors that disagree with him.

Arbitrators

imposed restrictions on him that might apply here but that remedy expired long ago. So I don't see any grounds for arbitration enforcement. But I also can't see how this won't end up at arbitration eventually, once other avenues for dispute resolution have been exhausted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I wrote this three and a half years ago.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration.

the 'visit to arbitration' doesn't apply as sanctions have expired/he is editing well outside the bounds of his topic ban. But otherwise I don't see anything that's changed from then to now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disturbed that

talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Brilliant, ban me too.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says the long-time career Brews booster. Pray, enlighten us how a single post to ANI is ‘canvassing’. I suppose Brews’ carpet-bombing of talk pages, policy pages etc. don’t count as canvassing, by your definition. 173.166.17.106 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket has had a problem since s/he tried to elicit Brews support for an attack on an admin who had banned them both. Since then s/he appears from time to time to support Brews behaviour. For the record (I) every editor who has engaged with Brews on philosophy articles has had problems and attempts to portray this as a personal conflict do not bear examination. Todate Brews has failed to get ANY support for his edits (II) three of those editors who have a lot of experience on philosophy articles have thanked me for monitoring, someone has to (III) I have not brought anything about Brews to ANI, I know I am too involved I do that. Worth. Opting that Brews has not responded to the concern raised here at all ----Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try

talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You are forgetting this ban. I don't know if it still applies (to you and

WP:ARBSL#Motions #4 and #5.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I"m not forgetting that at all, a ban is something altogether different then what you are alluding to and I('m sure if you put just a little more effort you'll see where that was rescinded lol. Also please point out any personal attack made, I have not attacked anyone, I've called the viewpoint or reasoning is full of shit that is hardly a personal attack.

talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

OK you were blocked by the same admin who blocked and banned Brews., you then tried to canvas Brews in an ANI case against that Admin and I was one of the editors who pointed out the issue. Since then this type of intervention by you, with the belligerent language has been typical and distracts from the real issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Snowded I think Sandstein blocked me once and who gives a flying fuck if I cuss. I think what you are doing is deperately trying to smear any opinion against you and if your argument is that by using the word "shit" nyour logic must be weaker then I first thought.

talk) 12:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Like me, Brews is the sort of editor who is most suited to edit articles on scientific subjects where the kind of logic he is used to applies. But this will only work in those subjects that he is an expert in and knows the literature quite well. The problems started a few years ago when he ventured out of his usual domain and in the speed of light article he caused problems. That led to an ArbCom case which imposed rulings that made things worse, because he was banned from all physics articles, while the only thing he could edit well were certain physics and math articles. Then because things were worse than they were, that led to more broad topic bans and he was banned from all math articles as well.

I have said many times before, if a topic ban were imposed on Brews that would ban him from editing any articles except a few approved ones (e.g. accelleration in curvlinear coordinates, Lagrangian mechanics etc.), he would be happy and the rest of Wikipedia would be happy too. So, I see the Brews problem more as a symptom of the new Admin/ArbCom ideology that exists here since aboput 2008 clashing with certain realities here than some big unsolvable problem. It's a purely ideological problem that has caused some editors to be banned from Wikipedia just for speaking out on the stupidity of the situation, an Admin has been desysopped for reversing some block that was argued to undermine ArbCom's authority. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a thoughtful solution. Relax the topic ban to areas where he has expertise would benefit Wikipedia. Maybe a 'give up if you do not get other editors to buy in' on all other articles. I'd happily support a case being made to relax the current ban to keep him engaged in a useful way----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to all of us though. We all have our own areas of experience and expertise which we can usefully contribute on. One of the key skills of WP or any collaborative enterprise is knowing where your talents lie and focussing on those to make your most useful contribution. Once you reach adulthood you don't expect others to tell you what your best areas are, you're expected to know them yourself with only occasional pushes from peers.

And editing only approved articles implies some sort of oversight, e.g. another editor approving which articles he can edit. Something like this has been suggested before but thought unworkable. Any editor involved with Brews in a way that he disagrees with inevitably ends up with their arguments ignored, their motives questioned and often their ability to edit or character attacked. Assigning an editor to tell Brews which articles he can edit would be a particularly cruel and unusual punishment for that editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was thought to be unworkable, but knowing Brews reasonably well and some of the articles he has worked on in the past without much problems, I think that this is something we should try. E.g. Slavomir asked Brew a few years ago to work with him on dirac delta function, and they had a good collaboration. This is completely different from the fighting that we've seen in other articles. Thing is that there is already a topic ban in place, so you just change this topic ban into a flexible one. A small list of approved articles may to Brews be a lot more than a big pool of articles that he really isn't interested in. If you give me one interesting math problem , I can work on that the whole day. If you give me an entire museum of modern art, I will be bored to death. Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that the conversation is running along the lines that contributing articles to WP is best done by experts in those topics.

First, I have found WP editors to be unimpressed by expertise, and ready to argue with all comers, even regarding specialized topics like centrifugal force where they know nothing. So arguments won't be fixed this way. But second, and far more important, WP by it's very concept, it's basic nature, is to be written by non- experts.

So the real challenge for WP is to develop a culture where non- experts can do this. A key ingredient in a conversation among non- experts is to rely upon published sources. That reliance means discussion is about sources. If discussion is confined to what sources say, that goes much easier than arguing with each other to build a popular consensus. Unfortunately, many WP editors do not wish to address sources, but wish to assert their opinions, and that holds at least as much for real experts as for WP self-professed 'experts'. If the focus can be held upon sources, WP would be on its way, IMO. Brews ohare (talk)

Brews response here illustrates the problem raised by several editors here. Despite the fact that many editors have explained that it is not just about assembling sources he simply ignores them and carries on with the way he thinks Wikipedia should work. In practice Wikipedia has developed the culture where non-experts can contribute; Brews does not want to respect the rules that make that possible. When he has challenged the rules on the various Forum discussion pages his position has been consistently rejected, but he doesn't learn from that. Just yesterday we find a situation where he creates one article to use material rejected elsewhere. I opened a discussion about agreeing an appropriate name for an article but Brew's response is simply to create another one with the same rejected material and to use PROD, inappropriately, to delete the first one. He simply will not engage with the communityother than on his own terms. Talk a look at the essays on his talk page for more evidence on this. For those interested I re-directed his new article back to the first he created and have made yet another attempt to engage him in agreeing things on the talk page first. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, I do think you are onto something here. Maybe a list of articles and a mentor agreed by Brews and the Community who can add to that list and help Brews learn the rules, accepting the mentor being a condition. I think you have the measure of this, would you draft something? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if the vicious cycle of Brews ohare contributing, Snowded deleting, Brews ohare restoring , Snowded deleting ... is broken. From what I've seen, Snowded doesn't contribute material to article pages. Perhaps Snowded and Brews ohare could agree to a contribution, for example on the Talk:Enaction (philosophy) page, and then Snowded could make the edit that adds the contribution to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob: You are such a beacon of hope; your suggestion is wise; Snowded has refused this invitation by myself to do the 'heavy lifting' to flesh out his ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, if you check out the free will article you will see that Pfhorest went through all of Brews material and proposed some limited amendments to the article. Brews then refused to accept those changes unless all of his edits were accepted. I've had similar experiences in the early days, as did you when you tried to help him and I stood back. I can find the diffs if you want. If you check it out, I leave as much of. Brew's edits as I can (so I disagree with your characterisation) but there is extensive OR and synthesis of primary sources. Every RfC todate has supported the deletions by myself, Machine Elf and others. Most recently on Enaction you will see another editor asked to engage by Brews, starts by supporting the deletions (I left a lot of the original draft). So the process you propose is fine, if Brews is prepared to compromise and work with other editors on the he talk page to agree text. Todate (as on Physics articles before) he has refused. If you look at the comment above Brews wants me to engage in primary research and I'm not doing that; I think you actual proposal is sensible butI I don't think Brews understands it.----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, you have an evocative term for what you don't want to do: "Engage in primary research". or what Jc3s5h has supported as "Source-based research [which] is the method used to write Wikipedia; without it, Wikipedia cannot exist." Here you have hit upon an excuse for never discussing sources - either they are "primary" sources that should be avoided, or they are "secondary" sources that need no comment. Add to that the vagueness of WP policy about the distinction, and you never have to do more than simply revert what you don't like without going into any detail.

I have caught on that you don't want the labor of adding to articles, and offered to do the heavy lifting if you provide an outline of what is on your mind. Why not do that? Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brew's every editor who has engaged with you over multiple RFIs has tried to explain

WP:OR to you. Your views have not received support from other editors over multiple articles, but you persist in stringing together quotes based on your personal selection of original material. Pfhorest in particular put hours into trying to explain to you how you had misinterpreted that material on Free Will, as multiple editors did before when you tried to change the definition of Philosophy. It is a simple verifiable fact that you have not been supported by any editor over multiple articles. Until you learn from that you will get no where. It is, as other people have pointed out, a more or less exact repeat of the behaviour that got you permanently banned from all articles on Physics. If you carry on I suspect sooner or later it will come back here. It would be useful if an uninvolved admin or two could review the editing history and comment. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I just noticed a recent section at Talk:Enaction (philosophy).[30] If you continue there, the suggestion I made in my last message might come to pass. Also, I noticed some productive work in another recent section there involving you, Brews ohare, and another editor.[31] Maybe it's time to give peace a chance (all I am saying). --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I initiated that, but as yet I just see the same old response from Brews. I or others try on most articles then after being rebuffed give up. Maybe he will change this time but I very much doubt it. Shifting all the disputed material onto another article rather than engage on the talk page you reference was his first response. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: Your remark is incorrect and inappropriate. My response to your suggestion was to ask you just what work by Leslei Paul Thiele you are referring to, as none that I looked at fitted your description, I also suggested that you might have meant to refer to Rowlands. whose discussion does fit your description. But rather than reply in thoughtful manner, here you are stirring the pot. Brews ohare (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit that I missed that response Brews. I was dealing with your creating another article with material that had been rejected by myself and TonyClarke in the coffee breaks while teaching here in New York along with responses here. Material by the way that I discovered you had restored again (with a misleading edit summary) when I got back to the hotel late last night and posted above. Keeping up with the volume of your comments can at times be difficult. I'll respond and see if we get anywhere this time. In this case I had to repost on the 7th April my original material on title and scope (posted 3rd April) as you had not engaged with the proposal other than to defend the deleted material and then post it (three times at the current count) to a new article. The deletion was supported by TonyClarke and Machine Elf during the same period. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your convoluted excuse/apology for being too pressed to think about your responses. I have therefore provided a very detailed question about the relevance of Leslie Paul Thiele's Heart of Judgment to

Enaction (philosophy). Perhaps you will provide some page numbers to identify the content you wish to source? I hope that does not violate your resolution to avoid 'original research'. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Brews, with the sheer volume of material you post people are going to miss things. When you set up new articles or edit ware to reinsert material rejected by three editors it creates confusion and difficulty. You had ignored the suggestion the first time round and forced me to repeat it, while edit warring in parallel ....----Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, none of this matters. Your "suggestion the first time round" and its follow up are so vague it is impossible to act upon them. You keep promising to do more: let's see that happen. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That reminds me of a practical question. Suppose an editor comes along and makes major changes in an article that would take more time to check than other editors have the time to spend. If an editor is trying to maintain the integrity of the article, what should be done in that case, keeping in mind the premise that the editor doesn't have the time to check the changes in detail because there are so many of them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when the length of talk page comments requires hours of study and are tenacious in nature. Keeping up with Brews is a full time job as he never changes no matter how many editors engage.. I've done my best to check the material and leave what I can, but Brews often edits over edits with multiple changes which means you have to open two windows and make detailed changes. His separation of references from the text means you then have to make another round of checked to get rid of ones that are no longer relevant. A responsible editor would leave references in text until the article had stabilised. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, this 'hypothetical case' of yours could be taken to refer to me, as Snowded has done. However, I don't think my changing of a subsection title and addition of the authors' source for the term classical sandwich in a WP reprise of their work quite amounts to an overwhelming set of "major changes in an article that would take more time to check than other editors have the time to spend", even though I used the list-defined references Snowded objects to. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to consider without thinking of who it refers to, without identifying with any of the hypothetical editors, and without prejudice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bob, as an abstract issue, divorced from ANI, that consideration belongs on a policy page. Brews ohare (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This abstract question actually gets at the heart of what I find difficult about working with you, Brews. If I had unlimited time and patience there really wouldn't be any problem at all. The challenging thing for me is that you're not a clear vandal who I can just blanketly revert (thus requiring little time on my part regardless of the size of your edits), but neither are you someone I feel I can trust to make mostly constructive edits, any problems with which can and will be fixed eventually by someone else if not me. I feel like if I ignore you, you will slowly change the article for the worse (whatever article we're working on in question, this is a repeated pattern across multiple articles), and nobody else will come along and fix it; but if I am not going to ignore you, I have to engage you properly, on the content issues at hand, which quickly becomes extremely time consuming and anxiety-inducing as what seems like a never-ending black hole of intractable misunderstanding and disagreement yawns open before us.

So I find myself trying to find the quickest way to justify my objection and move on. But that never really seems to be possible. Snowded and others give much terser responses which take much less of their time but then you complain that they are not engaging you on the content dispute. If these articles had more active editors, then a large number of people would be discussing the issues and a consensus would quickly emerge that no one editor could effectively continue struggling against, but with hardly anyone engaged on these articles, it becomes a battle of attrition, who can continue arguing the longest, and frankly you're quite capable of talking your opponents to death -- an ability I used to pride myself on when I had the time to engage in it, but now that I'm on the other side of it I'm learning how troublesome it can be.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but that's the problem as I see it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

I have made a proposal here in an attempt to engage Brews on first agreeing the subject matter and range of an article before jumping into mass edits and forcing reverts. I've also made proposals as to the manner of editing to reduce the volume of talk page material and make it easier for other editors to change the text while the article is in active development. Bob (and others) it would be really helpful if you could chip in. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is (going forward) for the second version of the article under a different title. Regarding #2 "If agreement is not reached after 1/2 iterations between two editors the discussion ceases unless other editors engage", he's just not going to do that. Better that until such time the other editor's objections survive any number of re-presentations and insubstantial alterations.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm of the opinion that Brews should focus on making the complete argument in one go as much as possible, with only one opportunity to address criticisms. This is pretty much what you have to do when you submit an article to a journal, so this is a well tested method that works in practice. In the case of editing Wikipedia, it means that you have to make sure what you edit is well thought through, as you get only two opportunities to defend them on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count: You may be unaware that I have followed this prescription of presenting a complete argument complete with sources as a standard operating procedure. That does not necessarily avoid talk-page dispute, especially when the entire contribution is summarily dismissed with a cryptic one-line edit summary like "This material is OR". A challenge on the talk page results in "Read the policy". Further request for clarification is followed by "Reasons already given. It's not my job to teach policy". This kind of nonsense is everyday activity for hit-and-run editors used to dealing with vandalism and completely uninterested in adding information to WP. The length of the discussions is largely due to attempts to get some concrete suggestions for improvement.

There are other situations of less stupidity that lead to long talk page discussions. A recent example is Pfhorrest's discussion with me about 'moral responsibility'. Pfhorrest has taken it upon himself to educate me on the subject, and he has done so to a degree. However, that mindset that I am an ignorant non-philosopher also leads him to expound where expounding is not required, and to focus upon his views and not sourced opinion, which is more diverse than his own understanding.

So my solution to the issue of extended talk page discussion in both cases is simple: Insist upon discussion of sources, avoid vague appeals to WP policies, don't simply advance your own opinions, but instead present published opinion, and above all do not regard discussion as polemic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brews, I expound on areas where you seem to lack comprehension of the source material or the necessary context to understand it. You seem to ignore that expounding as unnecessary, thinking that you already understand what I am talking about, and missing that I am arguing that you misunderstand it, that your understanding is not correct. And I am not ever trying to discuss my views, but rather the correct interpretation of the "sourced opinion", which you repeatedly seem to misunderstand as somehow contradicting things I've said before when to my eye they clearly support everything I've been saying all along.

This problem about arguing over the correct interpretation of primary sources is why Snowded et al keep bringing up how it's inappropriate synthesis and original research to rely directly upon them, instead of upon secondary sources. You can show that some notable figure has written some words, but then you take those words to mean something which seems (in my educated opinion as someone who has extensively studied the subject at hand) like a clear misunderstanding of those words, and use them to cite claims in the article that they clearly (again, in my educated opinion) do not support. But since this is Wikipedia and one editor's academic credentials don't mean a thing, we're effectively just two anonymous editors arguing over what a source really means. How do we resolve that? We find a secondary source giving a notable opinion about what those primary sources really mean, and how they relate to each other.

Though I guess that could just push the problem back a step to interpretation of the secondary sources too, but at least it brings us one step further away from just arguing our opinions on the content, and thus a step closer to neutrality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that Brews gives it everything he's got, all in one go, every time. But if (for any reason) that substantially duplicates his similar presentations in other sections, new/existing articles etc., it should be enough to give a link and briefly say "Reasons already given..."—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfhorrest: Your remarks are entirely consistent with mine, but from your standpoint. Education is a good thing. It should take the form of saying something like: "Read such and such about so and so. You'll find it says such and such.". It should not take the form of: "You just don't get my point of view", followed by a supposed paraphrasing of my latest response that reads conflict into what is actually agreement. Addressing sources would stop all this. As for sources, the drive here is not really about primary vs secondary sources; it is about objecting to contributions that aren't just condensed repeats of canned summaries from existing encyclopedias. The idea is that if the Stanford Encyclopedia has an article (taking philosophy as an example), then we can just copy and don't have to hunt down sources or even read them. It's not better information to do this culling of review articles, it's just less work. Unfortunately there are a great many topics that have no such Stanford Encyclopedia article, so unless we are willing to try to summarize monographs and anthologies and sometimes papers, WP is out of the game. Brews ohare (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An ordinary content dispute on

Yikes. - Embram (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now he and

Lfdder (talk · contribs) are conversing about the incident in Greek; both have been notified that English must be used here on en.wiki. Elizium23 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I've explained it on my talk page. — lfdder 03:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My replies to Elizium23 can be found here, here and here. Research, read and reflect on the actual content/info, the actual edits-edit-history and the actual behaviour and acts. Thanx.
In short, imo, this is a cautionary tale of - within a context of a probable total ignorance of relevant stuff, e.g. Greek, Ancient Greek, etc. - boundless arbitrary legalism, in-group, herd behaviour

(more or less actually admitted: "This topic area is frequented by Esoglou and myself, we are all experienced editors here, and so seeing that Esoglou had a concern, I decided to investigate and back him up if I found his concerns to be well-founded."

NOTE: I'm not in any way accusing Esoglou. From my point of view he/she has been very very reasonable and understanding once explained in detail),

EDIT-ON-NOTE: Strike this, I take it back: Esoglou seems to have used this as a means or an excuse to go ahead and do as he pleases despite the serious objections-arguments explained in detail by me to him and without giving any counterarguments to them at the talk page... His edits have now been dealt with accordingly... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

censoring of "bad" language, actual personal attack, and finally persecution syndrome(?) (e.g. vicious personal attack, Now he and Lfdder (talk · contribs) are conversing about the incident in Greek).
PS Let alone a case of total absence of a sense of humour... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While English is the dominant language for article space (although quotes and references may be in other languages), there isn't any "English-only" Wikipedia policy for user talk pages. If I'm wrong, please let me know what policy applies to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misinterpreted WP:SPEAKENGLISH because it falls under "Talk pages used for collaboration" and appears to specifically exclude user talk pages. My bad. Elizium23 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elizium23, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I appreciate the link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you mind terribly striking out your warning? — lfdder 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need. User talkpage discussions should also be in English, unless impossible to do so. That's how that "guideline" reads. The "warning" isn't really a warning - it's a notification/reminder to speak English. We peons need to be able follow user talkpage discussions as well - in part so that we don't re-warn, or re-advise of something already warned about ES&L 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how the guideline reads. This is what it says right at the top of that section: "These guidelines apply specifically to discussion pages which are used for collaboration, which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages." — lfdder 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, read the "guideline" a little higher up ... you know, common sense, etc. And remember, it's a "guideline". DP 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is boring. — lfdder 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the guidelines saying English use is "preferable" which is quite a way from "must be used". Plus, it is not uncommon for me to see editors and admins talking in other languages to others who speak their primary language on their talk page. I also see American users who speak a little German have a conversation with a native German speaker or French or any number of languages. I think it's necessary to favor the English language in article and article talk page space although I do see Italian sources or Korean used in footnotes, for example. But editors are given more leeway on their talk pages and as long as it is incidental (which is was in the OP's complaint), I don't think it should pose a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have conversed with another editor in French because they were unable to understand the rules and processes in English. I always left an English translation in case someone followed up behind me and needed to understand. DP 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non English sources on the English Wikipedia is only when there are no English sources of equal validity. As for speaking or writing in non English on your own talk page there are limits to that as this is a collaboration and you cannot collaborate if only a few can understand you. If you use non English on your own talk page there is some leeway but not much as this isn't a social network and the purpose of the User talk page is to discuss improvements to the project. The last non English talk page I encountered was purely promotional and may have been using non English to avoid scrutiny...which didn't actually work. I like the way DP includes a translation.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, so there is a small disagreement here over how broadly the English-only rule applies. If it does apply to user talk pages, then you currently have a problem at

WP:TPG because that guideline is listed under the section which explicitly excludes user talk pages. So some consensus and modification is called-for there. However, I would like to draw your attention back to the main issue at hand. The Greek thing was really a minor afterthought that I am not too concerned about, so rather than spilling ink on that here, can we focus on Thanatos' outrageous hostility and unfounded personal attacks in light of a very simple and minor content dispute? I'd appreciate some kind of action in that direction, given that he was amply warned and continued to escalate. I am quite offended and I did nothing to deserve any of that. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that the discussion has wandered off, would it be best to let the matter lie with the issuance of a public rebuke to someone who on his talk page has said of himself, in Greek, that he has "the courage of his words" and who may thereby be helped to reduce somewhat the temperature of those words?

My parenthetic remark, which I did not expect would be treated as fueling further anger, was given in Greek because meant for him alone and was in response to his citation of an (unreliable) source in Greek alone. It seems I should not have used that language there, even as a parenthesis. I apologize for doing so. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense; "policy" can't cover everything. If two users who're fluent in English choose to use Greek to converse on the English Wikipedia, and to blow off objections, it's obviously inappropriate. If it wasn't done for the purpose of shutting others out, you still need to be aware that it looks like that. Please use English instead of offering

Please apply in and provide appropriate, proper, relevant, actual context next time... The same thing, emphasised to the maximum, should be pointed out to Esoglou ;-) (see comment above, 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)):

• 1.Talk:Sanctus#The purpose of providing a Greek text:

"... (Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)... Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)...

...PS Continuing for a while and only for while, between us two in Greek (after Esoglou started it...:) ):

"(Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)"

Δεν σε πιάνω... Δες σχόλιο υπ'αριθμόν 9. Αν πάλι δε εννοείς κάτι άλλο, διευκρίνισε σε παρακαλώ...

Συνέχισε σε παρακαλώ πάντως την συζήτηση στα αγγλικά· είναι κανονισμός αλλά και χάριν ευγενείας και σεβασμού προς τους άλλους...

Στο κάτω κάτω της γραφής είμαστε στην αγγλική, όχι στην ελληνική wikipedia... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)..."

• 2.User talk:Thanatos666:

"...This is my talk page. Feel free to use e.g. google translate. Or ask some other Greek speaker to translate. After your recent behaviour I won't do you this favour...

Especially when you're again invoking and (mis-)interpreting rules (or in fact good practices) at will:..."

PS Especially when it's not me who had actually, in any instance, started conversing in Greek or who has shown an overindulgence in legalisms... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this directed at me? What legalistic arguments are you talking about? What blowing off objections? I wasn't even involved in the argument. — lfdder 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This legalistic argument that the rule doesn't say you have to. The blowing-off-objections part was Thanatos: "This is my talkpage. Feel free to use google translate". Bishonen | talk 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I disagreed on the interpretation of it -- what makes it a legalistic argument? You seem to think I'm trying to make excuses for writing in another language or something; I'm not. I didn't think much of it when I did, and, like I've said before, I appreciate that it might've not been the right time. — lfdder 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody seems to care to discuss Thanatos' behaviour; it pales in comparison to my having spoken in Greek....naturally. Somebody hat this then? — lfdder 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so y'all know, this complaint is ongoing and active as this user continues in incivility to Esoglou on Talk:Sanctus, where I have stepped out of the room for my own safety. It would be appreciated if someone in authority reminded this experienced editor that gross incivility is not tolerated on Wikipedia from any source, whether a redlinked IP editor with five edits or someone with 7 years and 6511 edits to his name. Considering the incident which earned him a block just a few weeks ago, it is possible that this editor is going through some personal issues which may be clouding his normally clear judgement and he should be encouraged to at least voluntarily step away for a short time and consider treating others with politeness and deference, especially when editing outside of his chosen topic areas. Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really like how nobody gives a crap. I mean, personally, I wouldn't really do anything other than talk to them, but if admins are gonna 'take a firm stand' and hand out blocks for incivility and personal attacks and whatnot, they might as well do it consistently. Bunch of muppets. — lfdder 23:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,

competence being required. From what I see, there's no "gross incivility" on that page, just a general level of dickishness that's unwelcome on the project as a whole. If Thanatos has not recognized how close he is to some form of action by reading this thread by now, then there would be a serious concern about their level of comprehension. As such, since it's been hashed out ... and Thanatos has clearly participated in this thread, no further "talk" with them is required DP 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry but I have to be blunt: What the fuck?!?!?
Have you actually read the actual discussion(s) etc?!?!?
To other editors: please read the actual message exchange(s), the history of edits, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanatos666 (talk • contribs)

Now you're accusing me of not reading? Really? When someone says you're creating a

wP:BATTLE, it's best not to repeat the behaviour in ANI DP 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The legalese is getting ridiculous! Yes I'm accusing you of not reading; either this or the accusation would get much worse... ;-) I have gone out of my way to both a.improve the article, adding and correcting stuff of both context and form and b.explain, analyse, substantiate etc stuff to the other involved parties having started from a point of ultra politeness and having changed this stance way later, only when fully and unjustly provoked, being named, accused of or having been attributed-to, various interesting names-qualities-things. You've now for example accused me of incompetence (how is this not a personal attack?!?!?! Where exactly is your fucking "proof", let alone your real proof in the proper context????). This coming from a person, coming btw out of nowhere, who is defending, among others, an editor (Elizium23) whose most signigicant contribution to the article at hand, out of 12 in total (take a look at them; they're really of magnificent, paramount importance and level...), is probably this, an editor who apparently doesn't know Greek (ancient or Modern) or relevant stuff, yet who apparently thinks of himself/herself as really capable of judging correctly on related issues, etc., and of course of subsequently acting accordingly. You have also accused-named me as being polemic, disruptive, etc.(again without citing any actual fucking proof), when in fact I've gone out of my way, I've bended over backwards, of being polite and constructive (and humorous...), of trying to collaborate with people etc, and only changed the first, after being accused of, being called, attacked, in various ways and names... (while in fact I have again and again and again returned to being ultra-polite trying in vain to collaborate and to be constructive)
Let alone the absurd baseless accusation against me (instead of others...) of supposed unwillingness of me to read and to apply wikirules and wikipractices...
To the administrators and to other editors out there:
Please trace back the steps of the the article edits-edit-history (please also see contributions by various parties and prior state(s) of article before this dispute) and the relevant discussions, to the beginning. Then please read forwards, see going forward, what had actually been done to the article and what had actually been said in discussions.
Just for the record and among other things, these guys/gals have in effect, explicitly or implicitly, (mis-)interpreted (stretching them to the point of absurdity; in effect abusing them; and many times actually having themselves been guilty of some of them) (mis-)invoked, and (mis-)accused me accordingly of among other things:
OR, SYNTH, Verifiability in general in various forms, e.g. PROVEIT SOURCE SOCIALMEDIA, VANDALISM, OWNERSHIP, speaking-Greek, etc..
I'm no saint. But I cannot prove I'm not an elephant...
If you want to ban me, ban me. I can't take this anymore...
PS I really can't get this guy:
What the fuck is this now?!?!?!Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: AND AGAIN... Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No further talk ('talk'?) is required? Is that a 'legalistic interpretation' of some guideline or policy, perhaps? — lfdder 00:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the policy of "he's already read right here that he's in doo-doo, there's no need to smear it in his face". You suggested someone "talk" to him - there's no need, he's read all the talking ... oh wait, maybe it was your turn to be pointy and sarcastic? Well, you've read where that gets you DP 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, I'm shaking in my little space boots. What was even said? The only one who's commented on their behaviour is Elizium. And that's not talking to them -- it's talking about them. The issue the way I see it is Thanatos is not very willing to understand. And, by blocking them, you're doing much the same; the difference is you're on the good side. It's not unreasonable to get upset with other people, but we ought to try to reach some sort of understanding. A block's rather unlikely to get us there. — lfdder 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Thanatos had realized he was in trouble by reading this thread (and I don't see how that was possible because it was derailed from inception over a trivial issue of speaking Greek) then he would've changed his tune on

see if he will realize that what he's doing is wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

To other editors(repeat): please see, read, the actual discussions and the relevant stuff... ;-) Thanx. Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion at

our policy. But I did see an editor (Thanatos) going through a melt-down. Hyperbolic speech (with capital letters, excessive punctuation, implied profanity through self-censored phrases/words) is an unnecessary escalation of the situation. I wouldn't leap into blocking based on what I've seen there (because again, there were no direct insults or other kinds of attacks) but Thanatos should definitely tone it down at least a few notches. -- Atama頭 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I have to repeat that readers of this should imo read the actual exchanges and the history of the whole dispute before making up their mind on anything.

2. Can't find what an IBAN is. Not fluent in this dialect of legalese or bureaucratese: Is it something like an interaction ban (or am I to be prohibited from wiring money to them??? :) )? If so, no problem , I could stop talking to them (I also would have no problem, although it has become very very tedious, to continue talking to them), but it seems weird, unacceptable, etc., to prohibit me from editing actual articles, especially for such reasons...
I have wide interests and I edit accordingly. See for example the article in question and my edits on it (and then compare to the edits of others). I see this as a trick; heads (s)he wins, tails I lose. I think I may actually have some, and only some, competence in editing stuff like Sanctus (or at least the Greek stuff thereof). Elizium23 seems to be lacking any such competence. Elizium23 would also be even more so lacking (and/or probably not interested) in many other stuff/articles I edit. So what (s)he proposes is... ;-)

3. A question and a request: Is there some kind of ban that actually prohibits people from invoking/quoting/citing wikirules for an x period of time advising them to use this time for reflection on and reading said rules carefully?
If there isn't, may I ask that someone creates and applies it?!?!? :D

Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about 30 seconds away from making an

WP:IBAN moot by blocking Thanatos666 ... any real objections? DP 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Any real arguments, factual and logical, justifying, explaining and substantiating this possible action, especially against what I've said, argued and asked??? Cause either there aren't any, you haven't written any, or I'm going blind... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions

sigh. Do stop throwing your weight around. — lfdder 10:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do let us know when you decide to start being helpful, rather than disruptive, mmmkay? ES&L 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

trying to bait me now? Pathetic. — lfdder 11:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have wished to keep out of this discussion almost entirely, but I feel I must draw attention to this latest exchange. Esoglou (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47 has been canvassing Wikipedia with COI accusations aimed at me for over a month now, along with personal attacks, and has helped create a toxic atmosphere in the

Some diffs: [32] [33] [34]

Similar attacks on others: [35]

COI attack on Jimbo's page: [36]

Another editor's commentary on her behavior on Jimbo's page: [37]

She rants about "shills" which she finds everywhere: [38]

Her being warned by another editor: [39]

ANI 1 (mentioned later) [40]

ANI 2 (Petrarchan comes in later) [41]

Geogene (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More bad behavior: canvasses COI accusations over at an Admin's talk page, intent to influence courts: [42]

Refuses to read thread, disrupts RS Noticeboard with soapboxing/advocacy: [43]

Geogene (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but where in any of this are you accused of being "a stakeholder in the ongoing Clean Water Act litigation" and that you're "here to sway a US Federal court case through Wikipedia." Not seeing it. What I do see is a content dispute in which you have been accused (with some justification, I believe) of pushing a POV. And frankly I don't see even that point being pursued very aggressively. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think she means that I work for BP. That's what she repeatedly insinuates, and has been since about February. Of course, she's very vague in her insinuations, because she knows what she is doing is against the rules. Incidentally, here's an instance where she deletes my cited content, calls it "undoing whitewashing". [44] Geogene (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should emphasize that I don't work for BP. Or any PR firm. Or oil company. Nor was I involved in the spill or its aftermath in way. But somehow she thinks I'm here to change the outcome of a trial. Want to see examples of what POV-pushing really looks like, Core? Geogene (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really, though there isn't a force on earth to stop you if you want to go on about this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Here's a diff that shows P47 "tilting" the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station the article over two days: [45]. This is what the article looked like before P47 became involved with it: [46]. Compare to what it looks like now. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, I will certainly examine that with care. It looks to me at first blush that she expanded the article with sourced content but I am no expert. Meanwhile, I'd suggest discussing it with her on the talk page of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She uses sourced content, and I use sourced content. I accuse her of POV pushing, you accuse me of POV pushing. Some of the sources she uses are extremely questionable, but your remark that "she added sourced content" is not germane to this discussion. The point is that she POV-tilts articles. Geogene (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read the article and examined those additions, and I think that they were good additions that added important information concerning the plant. They seem perfectly neutral. They seem to have improved the article in a material sense. Now, if you feel otherwise, if you feel that there these are not good edits, then perhaps the place for you to express those concerns is in that specific article. But do keep in mind that if you follow an editor around from article to article, it can be considered harassment. Just so you know. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been good additions but they certainly weren't neutral additions, all of them were related to the plant's shady safety record. Just as all her edits in all the DWH articles are all edits that make the spill look as bad as possible. It's POV pushing. Why I followed an editor to that article (and it isn't the one you think it is) I will explain, if someone that isn't directly involved in this were to ask. "Can be" and "will be" are not the same anyway. I know that you "can" and "will" accuse me of just about anything around here regardless of my actual conduct. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a I left out the plagiarism. You'll find examples of that here: [47] Geogene (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A favorite study of hers is an analysis of synergistic toxicity of Corexit and oil. She has been trolling me ever since I started pointing out that the toxicity explicitly relates to plankton, making toxins in the oil more available to small organisms by splitting it up into droplets. Here she accuses me of "throwing off the message with overly technical lingo". Then she quotes the same paper a second time in the sentence that immediately follows, but introduces it as something else, so she can make one critical paper into two. That isn't POV pushing? [48]

• Here she accuses me of "pre-trial sugar coating". She thinks I'm trying to manipulate the courts with my Wikipedia edits, and is apparently worried about it. [49]

• Here she removes my cited addition (from the NIOSH, a US government agency). She says in edit comment: "stored Health effects section; please seek consensus first; this is currently in being battled in the courts". Some of it she did put back in later, once she saw it was about workers possibly exposed to ozone she decided it was acceptable. [50]

• After I established that the study mentioned above was about plankton, she decided to delete my version from DWH Oil Spill completely. Her edit comment is "remove whitewashing". She copy/pasted her version of it that never mentions the toxicity is for plankton, only the the "52 times more toxic" and "made the oil spill worse" variants. [51]

• Invokes conspiracy theories at the Talk:Corexit page, says that government science agencies aren't to be trusted. "We're not here to tell the USG/BP/EPA/NOAA side of the story as if it's RS. We give the entire story, but independent sources are preferred, and if the one questioing this study was hired by BP, that information should be given to the reader, who would want to know. There are also sources which say the government agencies worked in collusion with BP to hide some truth about this spill. Therefore, these sources should be taken with a grain of sand." (Emphasis mine.) [52] Geogene (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Me, "the SPA", and my evil plan to use overly technical terminology to confuse the Wikipedia community into believing my bullshit: [53].

Is it okay if I mention I'm frustrated by this being ignored? Is

This really is a mindboggler. Petra's editing history is littered with bad faith accusations at multiple users over an extended period of time. I don't believe a single one has been proven to have a basis (correct me if I'm wrong here). I don't really know why it's allowed to continue. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she's ever gone to COIN with it. I'm sorry to say I'd probably know about it by now if she had. That doesn't count the one editor that she (and some others) pushed to the point of taking himself there to be investigated, last August. That was in parallel with a trip to ANI linked to above. A comment she left on Jimbo's page may offer some illumination: Wikipedia is being taken over, and good editors are leaving because of it. So while you're looking at whether a certain PR firm is operating under the radar, I'm telling you this kind of activity can be seen by edits and talk page entries, by patterns of behaviour observed from ground level. We must be able to speak of the problem based on symptoms alone, untethered by a requirement to prove COI. We must have an easy way for someone like me to blow a whistle on ridiculously obvious BS such as with Monsanto articles, and to receive help, not to be asked to do this all alone, with little more than "good luck with your noticeboards". Thank you for hearing me out.[54] I read that as 'normal procedures are too burdensome to use'. Well I think there's a lot of validity to that, we have a problem with infiltration, but McCarthyism is not a viable solution. If she did take enough people to COIN, probability favors her finding an actual shill eventually, but I don't know how many investigations it would take them to reach that point. The fact that our community can be manipulated by the powerful is damaging, but it's no better if we're at each others' throats all the time, even then trained shills could probably operate here like fish in the sea. And once you've been Accused, there's really little you can do about it but accept it or complain here. Denying it as loudly as possible on talk pages isn't really helpful ("methinks he protest too much"). I'm skeptical that taking oneself to COIN is a good idea either, because then you're validating one groups' suspicions and wasting others' time. It becomes increasingly frustrating over time, and is disruptive. Geogene (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall that one editor she was clashing with on BP/DWH Oil Spill was soon banned for socking. She compared me to him the other day. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Add by edit: that is User:Rangoon11. The administrator MastCell would probably know a lot of the background on those incidents, but Rangoon11 was also accused of COI on BP by P47 and other editors questioned him on COI for pharma as well, as shown on his talk page. So to answer your question, "maybe". Geogene (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance with the current state of affairs at

First, a poster depicting Leon Trotsky (in a positive light as the guardian of Russia), has been removed for being "anti-Jewish propaganda", even though it was in fact - issued by Trotsky himself (i.e. the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky). Now, a photograph of Karl Marx is being removed from the lede on such grounds as "Marxism is not Communism" and "Marx was not a Jew, because he was baptized" (even though there are a half-dozen refs in the article stating the renowned philosopher was, in fact, "a Jew", and none stating otherwise). It used to be "Marx is not mentioned in the article, hence we can't have him in there", until he was actually mentioned in the article. Now of course the objection shifts.

In short, one argument more absurd than the other, essentially pro forma to allow for the clique to edit-war anything they oppose out of the article, and essentially keep it without a proper lede and lede image. See this thread, and this one in support of my above outline. Here's a quote of the latest post, to illustrate my point:

This article was the subject of an unsuccessful AfD nomination, and, very quickly afterwards, a DELREV review. Participants in support of its deletion are now very active at the article, and are stonewalling proposals to improve its quality. I hope to find out whether our illustrious ANI corps regards their arguments as honest and justified, or whether they are, in fact, malicious disruption with a mind to future deletion attempts. --

As regards USchick, I would like to suggest for consideration the possibility of a topic ban on communism, independent of this issue. Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one, or, just now, posts like this. --

talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't think that "disagreeing with Director" is evidence of deliberate sabotage. By the way, wondrous text like "The philosopher Karl Marx was a descendant of two rabbinic families." in the Karl Marx caption should be on some racist blog, not an encyclopedic article based on secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How is it racist to say someone is a descendant of rabbinic families? Also, the term "Jew" is not purely religious. There are Jews who self-identify as atheist, so it's not necessarily contradictory to describe a Christian as a Jew. Howunusual (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the communism/jews topic ban for DIREKTOR himself, on the basis of habitual pushing of antisemitic POV.--Galassi (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the best way to solve the problems of this article is an AfD as it is a first class battleground. And secondly, I am not entirely convinced that the information is true and properly balanced. The Banner talk 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq. As a matter of fact, I revised the caption, which was introduced in the first place as a response to talkpage claims that Karl Marx wasn't Jewish (which are, btw, actually offensive to Jewish people as well as untrue: Karl Marx was a great philosopher). Then Galassi restored the caption you're reading [55].

Further, if you believe being descendant from historic rabbinical families is insulting, then I would suggest its your own views that belong in said racist blogs. Perhaps even more so through your implication that Jews are a "race".

As for "disagreeing" with me, I invite you to actually read the exchange.

@Banner. One dispute over an image? The article is actually pretty quiet compared to many that I've seen. If we deleted all articles that are "battlegrounds" by such standards, I dare say we'd halve the project. As far as I'm aware, Wiki is here to cover controversial and difficult topics as well as the rest: whether an article is warranted or not is hardly determined by the level of controversy its topic engenders. --

talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the entire article seems shaky to me. The Banner talk 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the text is disputed.. it really isn't. But this isn't the place for such discussion? --

talk) 23:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure about how biased the other editors involved are, but by what I have read, I can't avoid noticing that Director is not very used to addressing actual arguments and frequently makes personal remarks, threats and fallacious arguments instead of presenting valid reasons to support his position. That can be easily noticed here: [56]. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm to blame..

That's only one of several discussions with USchick, I make no secret of the fact that I am very annoyed with the user's conduct - hence this thread. But I believe I have good reason: the user is extremely unfamiliar with the topic she's trying to discuss, but insists on her positions regardless (that's the mild formulation). Please read on past the first couple of posts (which basically amount to a groan of annoyance on my part at the prospect of another "discussion" with the user).

As Altenmann points out, talking to her is

WP:CHEESE, its infuriating. In that exchange she basically demands that the poster be "Jewish", which baffles me since the person in it is a famous Communist of Jewish ancestry (Leon Trotsky

). It quickly becomes apparent she never heard of Leon Trotsky, and upon my explaining who the person in the poster is, she continues to demand more "Jewishness", until Altenmann realized she was talking about the religion. Yes: she wanted a communist poster with the symbols of Judaism. Her reply was "Imagine that! Is that too much to ask?". I won't relay the whole discussion, but there's the gist of its first part. She moves on to how the person in the poster isn't really Trotsky, etc.

In my view, the user is simply opposed to the article, but nevertheless hangs around the talkpage - to block any attempts at expanding it or improving its quality. When the article was posted, she attempted to blank it almost entirely on grounds that "Marxism isn't Communism"; I'm not kidding: its a "theory" she still pushes on the talkpage right now! --

talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You claim the person in the uniform is Trotsky, and the only actual reason you or someone else gave for that is his uniform. That's not necessarily a good reason to believe it's him since other people probably wore it too. Regarding the diff concerned, all I have seen is USchick ask for a good reason to identify the person in the picture as Trotsky, which is the only reason you gave to consider the poster jewish, and I think you failed to present any proof of your point. That doesn't mean I agree with any particular political view of USchick by the way. But since you presented that diff as an example of misbehavior by USchick, I think it speaks more against yourself than her. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite accurate, please look closer: #1 the poster was obtained from image hosting websites listing it as a poster of Leon Trotsky, and links were provided. #2 The photograph of Trotsky apparently used as an inspiration for the depiction in the poster, has also been produced (he looks practically identical in the two). --

talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is unfortunate that Director, who otherwise is quite capable, loses objectivity when discussing Jews. He thinks the connection between Jews and Communism is self-evident and ignores that even if it is, we need sources to say that. I would suggest he avoid articles about Jews. I disagree with any action against USchick, IZAK or Galassi resulting from Director's complaint. TFD (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TFD has never missed an opportunity to imply antisemitism on the part of those who oppose his various agendas. For him "its all about the Jews". To me, its about adding a damn lede image to one of our articles. He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it. --

talk) 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not necessarily wrong to oppose to an article. I myself, at reading the article, wonder why is it any more relevant than if someone created an article called Blondes and Communism. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course. But if I don't think we need an article, I don't try to torpedo it if I don't have my way in the AfD.

As for "Blondes and Communism", the difference is - sources. There are numerous sources covering the topic of the article. There are none for "Blondes and communism", or "Brunettes and Communism", or "Hot-dog vendors and Communism", etc. :) I myself don't presume to decide which topic is relevant and which isn't: I see if scholarly sources think so or not. If you think its "racist" to draw such parallels, then I can only suggest you take it up with the sources (which, by the way, appear to be mostly Jewish scholars researching the phenomenon). Its also implied in these sort of comments that Communism is something "bad" (as opposed to "very, very good"), which is a view that millions and millions of people might disagree with. --

talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Like this source used to justify the poster. [57] A personal blog that describes a military uniform (Шинель) as a "red dress" hardly qualifies as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*groooaan* They don't mean a female dress! Uggh.. Dress (noun): 1. a piece of clothing for a woman or a girl that has a top part that covers the upper body and a skirt that hangs down to cover the legs. 2. a particular type of clothing. As in "

talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A SHINEL is a MILITARY overcoat.--Lute88 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She thought they mean a female

talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]