Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838

     This page has been manually edited after archiving. Please see page history for state of discussions at time of archiving.

{{collapse top|Much shouting, much incivility, much flinging of excrement against many editors. No sanctions have yet to be applied beyond the intial block. BrownHairedGirl and The Bushranger should go well out of their way to not think about Skookum1. (non-admin closure) Hasteur (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)}} [I have stricken this per talk page, as the admins in question were acting in admin capacity and on the request of other users, and are to be commended for taking on this unpleasant chore. —Neotarf (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)] I despise getting into this sort of thing (and in fact, I believe this is the first time I've ever actually filed an ANI report that wasn't a ban request for a sockpuppeteer, but...), but the behavior of

• Reply "The Witchunt Part II" huh? What is needed is not a ban to get me out of Wikipedia, but as noted/"hinted" by RadioKAOS what is really needed here is an interaction ban against BHG and now you for harassment and obstructionist behaviour. The CfD was launched moments after I created the category and is without guidelines to back it, or anything but IDONTLIKEIT and is entirely AGF in tone; BHG demands evidence and examples, I provide them, she says they're " 95%...irrelevant" and presumes to tell me to "cool down" and calls my detailed explanations "diatribes". "Walls of text" I'm avoiding by bulleting and paragraphing but failing that complaint, she engages in denial and obfuscation and more "bring me a shrubbery" gambits despite lots of shrubbery already being provided.
  • • The CfD has consumed three (two? - seems like longer) days of what would otherwise be productive time for this contributing editor; as with the regional district hyphen-endash RMs and last year's native endonyms RM, which were similarly stonewalled by demands for irrelevant picayune information, what underlies the categories being challenged is both consensus and very findable citations; but you can put reality in front of someone, they will still go IWANTMORE as BHG is doing; failing that the tactic being mounted here is to get me banned. Given that BHG has targeted whole hierarchies of categories she doesn't even understand where or what they are about is a case in point of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about not being useful in such discussions; and who have no business nominating them unless they'er clearly against guidelines; which these categories are not, as the 'oppose' votes have pointed out.
    • Calling for a ban against me is draconian and destructive. I wanted to stay away from procedural discussions after the painful round of insults and NPAs and pat-judgments that typified the "burn him, burn him!" "votes" in the last ANI, which was closed "no consensus for a ban or block", but in the wake of which (maybe within minutes, I haven't looked at the date/timestamps) I was blocked by BHG anyway, and then she went and conducted hostile closures on RMs where she ignored consensus, view stats, googles, guidelines and the prevailing and emergent consensus which closed/moves 90%+ of similar RMs.
    • And though I went at trying to work on articles and get away from the witchhunt mentality that prevails in this oh-so-negative "discussion board", I created some river articles arising from creating Tsetsaut and created a category for the many rivers in the region in question and was immediately faced by a CfD from an admin who had blocked me without consensus. The CfD should be tossed out on those grounds alone, never mind that she has yet to provide a valid argument for deleting/merging the categories she's assailing, and has expanded her challenge to my work by going after whole hierarchies of categories which, in various phases and on various talkpages, do have consensus as necessary.
    • This is a nuisance ANI, just like the CfD is a nuisance CfD, and though you claim you're not my enemy, your
      WP:DUCK action here says otherwise. "A subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will not advise nor submit to arbitrary measures" (Junius) comes to mind. Arbitrary and high-handed abuse from a certain cadre of admins is now far too common in Wikipedia, and is entirely destructive and anti-contributing-editor in tone/intent time and again; this deleted/censored comment
      of the now-banned Kumioto is one of many of this kind.
    • Actions like yours here and your obstructive presence on a CfD you yourself say you don't care about the outcome of are what is disruptive and anti-Wikipedian....not somebody who stands up to pointless criticism and denials of evidence/example; making me the target instead of addressing the evidence provided is your hallmark; as is deluging discussions with personal-related criticism instead of actually useful, thoughtful comments on the issues and the topic.
    • And yes, if someone knows nothing about geography of a certain region, or about the category system on such topics, then it is not their business to intrude and create more procedure just to stonewall and make specious demands which are then ignored or derided.......I'm having computer problems probably from the 100 degree plus heat here in Ko Samui (sleep mode happening repeatedly without being asked) so won't be able to respond to the inevitable dogpile of condemnations and hypocrisy like surfaced last time around.
    • the previous anti-consensus block by the person who launched the CfD calls into question her motives; her anti-AGF behaviour about citations and explanations provided is just sheer obstinacy and is disruptive and tendentious. I was contemplating an ANI or RfA or RfC or some other measure to discipline her, but I dislike procedure, as most contributing editors do, and want to write articles, not be hauled in front of kangaroo courts where attacking contributing editors is a past-time. The CfD is a waste of time and groundless and purely personal in motivation, and amounts to wiki-stalking by someone who has already taken actions in defiance of a 'no consensus' closure that said not to; how ironic she would claim that long-standing region titles should need "consensus"....they have it; but like evidence that 95% of which I'm sure she didn't read, "consensus" is really not what she wants, other than to use the CfD to overturn it. But why?. "Because it's Skookum1 who started that category so let's pretend there's something wrong with it"......and now, hell, let's just go after every category and title he's ever written huh?
    • Banning me would be a dangerous loss for Wikipedia, but you seem insistent on it for purely personal reasons and here as on the CfD and in previous discussions you indulge in
      WP:BAITing
      and what amounts to purely destructive behaviour. I just want to write and improve articles, but my time is being taken up defending myself against baiting and groundless anti-AGF criticism and harassment. Maybe one day "ordinary" (contributing) Wikipedians will be free from the tyranny of the vocal minority who infest discussion boards, be it here or on RMs or CfDs or in guideline discussions; but as long as public crucifixions and stonings of people who do constructive work continue, that day is a long ways off yet.
    • What is needed here, again, is not a ban to rid Wikipedia of me, but an interaction ban against those who have persistently harassed me and who refuse to read or acknowledge evidence and who have no logic or guideline citations to speak of; just IDONTLIKEIT and that's it. I have a great deal yet to contribute to Wikipedia, but the last few months have seen procedural attacks that are totally counterproductive and timewasting......so rather than goading me so you can condemn me, why don't you just stay out of my way and not jump on every discussion you see me in?? Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let's can the drama. Shut this thread. Give the guy some space. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• speedy close ani is just fuel on the fire. Close this, close the cfd, and leave him alone for a while. I can't see anything else working.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Carrite and Obiwan for your sanity. Days of article-writing time have been consumed by the demands made in the CfD, and this ANI is just more harassment of someone who is acknowledged as a highly productive and prolific editor who "knows his shit". I submit again as I did above that an interaction ban is maybe needed; but less formal would be
    WP:DISENGAGE on BHG's and Bushranger's part; the RMs that were harmed by their biases against me should also all be revisited because of the prevailing and mounting consensus that would have seen them passed/moved. The COI passage on closures says nothing directly about personal vendettas, but that's all that CfD really is, and what this ANI is.Skookum1 (talk
    ) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not "engage" you. I offered a caution and calming advice, in the hopes of avoiding your getting blocked, and I got a blistering tirade of personal attacks for my trouble. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "calming advice"??? you're either flattering yourself or just not clued in; you engaged me repeatedly before, always condemning and criticizing while claiming you are "giving advice", but your actions cluttered a CfD to the point where even when I produced citations from TITLE you accused me of continuing to BLUDGEON; the bludgeoning is yours, you painting yourself as innocent and even friendly is just..... there are a host of adjectives available...... given your track record with me saying you did not "engage" me by chiming in with a "support" and very AGF vote on a very AGF and pointless CfD puts the lie to the saintliness you are painting yourself as here.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• What is being requested here? I don't get the point of this thread. Is a block being requested, or a ban? No? This needs to be at something like RfC/U and not here. Doc talk 07:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd aver that a plain ol' RfC be held on BHG's launch of the CfD and her bad closes on sundry RMs, and her unilateral unsanctioned block of last week. I'm trying to be be a productive editor but finding my time tied up, and my presence here threatened, every time I turn around. The CfD, despite disclaimers that it's not anti-AGF, is very much so and in the context of recent events and words is highly COI in origin. The "Squamish matter" and the against-consensus/precedents closures of Haida people, Bella Bella, British Columbia and others need to be all redone because of the personal bias against me but the closer and their context within the recent ANI discussion/period. As Obiwan and Carrite have observed, I just want to be let alone so I can focus on article writing instead of having horseshoes thrown at me by people who have really nothing constructive to offer; I tried to "stay out of the way", but found myself stalked and pounced on and a whole host of categories challenged by someone who's never even heard of them before. As I said in the last ANI, I'm not the problem here; bad attitudes are, and the prevailing negativity of kibbitzers who nitpick on titles and topics without even knowing what they're about.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Raking me over the coals in an RfC/U would just be more procedure and no doubt an even more hostile and prejudicial environment than ANI is. And to what end? To alienate yet another long-time contributing editor and either drive or ban him from Wikipedia forever? The amount I could have gotten done in the last few weeks/months is obviously considerable; instead I have been regularly attacked and vilified and finally subjected to a public stoning and then a peremptory, unsanctioned-by-ANI ban by the person who now is asking non sequiturs and ignoring evidence provided as asked, and sticking her tongue in her cheek pretending innocence while castigating my information as irrelevant and wikilawyering in extremis. I was accused in the ANI of being a "time sink", but I'm not the time sink; procedure of the sake of the sport of it IS. How much of my last year or two has been taken up by time-consuming procedure of all kinds? Way too much. How many articles could I have improved and created in the meantime?? Subjecting me to an RfC/U to please those who have nothing better to do than criticize others is just gonna be more of the same....Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What is being requested here is that somebody give Skookum1 a plain-English warning that personal attacks like the one linked in the OP are simply not on, since it would be improper for me to do so both on account of being involved overall (and the target of said attack) and since it would be taken as just more proof of being persecuted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Damn right it is; you're the one doing the persecuting while claiming to be "not my enemy".....
      WP:DUCK says it all. You had nothing constructive to add at the CfD and here you are being destructive and calling for draconian measures to silence me forever. Give me a break, pal, I'm trying to get work done and loathe being hauled before mindless, picayune procedure that has no real productive value at all. Are you improving Wikipedia today? How? By launching an ANI against someone who just wants to be left alone so he can get some work done? Wow, very constructive....the CfD should be and I hope does get tossed out, and this ANI should be shut down for being the vendetta and witch hunt that it so clearly is.Skookum1 (talk
      ) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "Are you improving Wikipedia today"? Well let's see, I wrote an article from scratch and spent four hours building a table in another article. It was indeed a productive day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Evasion and misdirection is staple fare it seems; you calling for a ban on me for my getting impatient with obstinance and obfuscation in t he CfD is definitely draconian......as is coming to this ANI at all, considering the threats of "escalating blocks" that were not consensus-agreed-to, but done anyway; Drop the hammer and go write some articles if that's really what else you do.... Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • And this little edit comment of yours sums up the cynicism and hostility underlying you bringing me before "the court" today; and imputes that I need "fixing", which is just more NPA and AGF while you wrap yourself in saint's robes. Go fix yourself, pal, I'm not the problem around here, people like you ARE.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Bushranger: "...you're right, this is pointless. Somebody feel free to close this, so that nothing can be done and eventually he'll will be blocked, banned, or "driven away", because nobody cared to try to fix things while they might be fixable)"
              • I am not calling for a ban, or even for a block, here. The purpose of this ANI was to ask for a warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

A quick visit to my talkpage this morning shows just how badly Skookum personalizes things. The short version is this: Skookum made an edit to this page earlier - they must have got an edit-conflict, but clicked "save" anyway. It erased someone else's post, so I reverted with an appropriate edit-summary. Skookum then happily dropped by my talkpage to make accusations, and even when they restored their post, the edit-summary accused my of something nefarious. Gigantic time sink.  the panda  ₯’ 10:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's some bug in the software -- that type of edit, where an addition to one section removes content from another -- happens here sporadically. It's worse when there are lots of threads present. NE Ent 11:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Whether it was caused by a bug or by user error, the point is that DangerousPanda acted quite properly and non-judgmentally, but still got flamed instead of thanked. That's the sort of behaviour which keeps on bringing Skookum1 to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, there was there a lack of

WP:TPG in the statement they must have got an edit-conflict (no, they most likely did not). In addition, the summary given [1]] is only partially true -- while restoring edits accidentally removed by Skookum1 Panda did, in fact, remove Skookum's. See [2] for how to correct an ANI bug removal. We have enough "dirt" on Skookum without piling on nonsense. (It's this type of crap which leads credence, warranted or not, to the fiction that admins are a self-protecting cabal.) NE Ent

21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

On the narrow issue of this CFD, the situation is simply that after I had blocked Skookum1, I noticed that on his return he was posting complaints about me in various locations on my watchlist (e.g. [3]). So I looked at his contributions to see where else this was going, and saw a newly-created Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which didn't fit into any other category of rivers. I looked for similar categorisation schemes, didn't see any, and nominated for discussion at CFD with the rationale: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. Topics can be categorised in many different ways, and CFD regularly discusses whether new types of category schemes are appropriate. Skookum1's response was ballistic. Non-neutral notifications to no-less than 5 WikiProjects .([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and to User:Obiwankenobi[9].

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

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

Skookum1 is clearly a very enthusiastic editor, keen to expand coverage of the topics which interest him. But he has great difficulty with collaboration, and with consensus-forming processes. Instead of

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

It seems to me that the question is how can Skookum1 be helped to work collaboratively? Sometimes our contributions to Wikipedia are challenged, and discussing those disagreements civilly and concisely (see

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

He also hasn't figured out how to put across his point without using reams of words, which make many of his comments virtually unreadable. BMK (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think using a lot of words on a talk page is a problem. It's an annoyance for some, and it no doubt reduces the effectiveness of arguments of principles being made, but some people use more words than others. It's a minor party foul if it is a party foul at all. I also appreciate that there is a lot of venom and antivenin being spilled all over the place. Everyone involved needs to just let it go, forgive, forget, and move along. l've strongly advised Skookum not to answer here and I hope he doesn't. I similarly hope that this thread is shut down expeditiously — it has done nothing but fan the embers. Skookum is a productive content contributor; just let him go without whacking him in the head every five minutes. Differences in deletion discussions happen and sometimes they get needlessly heated. Everybody needs to breath deeply, to step back, to do something else for a while. Wikipedia is a big place and there is plenty to be done without launching into rounds 6, 7, and 8 of a fight that inevitably ends up with a productive contributor's head on a pike. I've seen this pattern too many times and it sickens me. Just let it go, everyone. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem, Carrite, is that while everyone else forgave, forgot, and moved along, Skookum1 did not, and that is the reason this thread was opened. Being a "productive content contributor" does not excuse unprovoked and vehement personal attacks, it does not permit tossing around accusation of bad faith, and it does not allow someone to tell people to

"get their nose out" of areas that person edits in. We can address the fact that Skookum1 has done all of these things (repeatedly, over and over) now, and hopefully retain him as a contributor, or we can close this and just come back to it in a week, month, or year, with another even stronger outburst of drama and the likely loss of the contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem here. One that involves more than User: BrownHairedGirl and User:Skookum1. The problem is the clash between those who want to contribute content to Wikipedia and those who try to stop them. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa, I've seen you make allusions to this before, and I think you're wrong. bHG has created ~3300 articles (or more?) and probably thousands of categories. What evidence do you have that she, or anyone else, is either 'not' contributing content to Wikipedia, or trying to stop those who are? Don't paint this as a clash of civilizations or of contributors vs others - simply no evidence that it is as simple as that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the typical tired refrain of people who think Wikipedia would be better off as an experiment in anarchy. They tend to think that the creation of some content should become an impervious shield that protects them from the consequences of behavioural issues. Resolute 23:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's especially droll, as I checked out @BrownHairedGirl:'s contribution history - she has many more edits, and a higher percentage of those edits in mainspace, than @Ottawahitech: and Skookum1 put together! Her overall percentage of mainspace edits is 67% (~248,000 edits to mainspace), whereas Ottawa has 22,000 edits in mainspace (in other words, 10x FEWER content-creating edits), and Skookum has 48,561 mainspace edits. The other editor who started this thread, The Bushranger, has 54,723 mainspace edits, again more than either Ottawa or Skookum. I'm not trying to denigrate the contributions of Skookum1 and Ottawahitech, and I myself have many fewer edits than all these folks, but the claim that this is about content creators vs something else is ridiculous, and I think Ottawa should withdraw that comment and apologize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

A withdrawal by User:Ottawahitech would be welcome. Ottawa appears a bit confused about what their beef is, because further down this page complains that I "try to do too much".

One minute, Ottawa complains that I am a non-content-creator picking on content creators. The next that as a content-creator I am shouldn't be an admin.

I hope that Ottawa will recall that one of the definitions of a personal attack is

"never acceptable". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a nice, round number. One month in "the hole". For... prevention of imminent damage, to protect the encyclopedia. Oppose. Doc talk 10:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - "to protect the encyclopedia" - the imputation that I am damaging the encyclopedia by expanding content and improving its categorization is just yet more AGF and misrepresentation; the call for a one-month block is draconian; it's like you're all wanting to up the ante without EVER discussing the issues and evidence in the CfD. It's persecuting contributing editors that's damaging wikipedia, all in the name of protecting the encyclopedia but really protecting the prerogatives and apparently immunity from review or questions about their motives, abilities and prejudices. I'm not the only one to observe the ongoing conflict between "wiki-idealists" and "wiki-bureaucrats", and I'm sure finding out what that's all about the hard way. What's going on here is a black mark in the history of Wikipedia...one among many, it seems....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose having created 350+ articles and 980+ images means I'm not a content contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Whether or not a block is the solution, there is a problem. Skooum1's conduct repeatedly disrupts consensus-forming discussions.

Skookum1's response to a discussion where he doesn't like the proposal, or where the debate isn't going his way, is to flood it with rants about all the rest of the ways in which he perceives himself to have been wronged, about the alleged ulterior motives of anyone who disagrees with him, about their intruding into topic areas which he feels are his preserve, etc. In the CFD which started this ANI discussion, Skookum1 has already posted 39,333 characters (2/3 of the thread), most of it unrelated to the CFD. His on-topic points are mixed in with the diatribes, so anyone trying to follow the substantive discussion can't easily skip over the outpourings of his frustration.

This sort of disruption has been seen in countless other discussions. See for example

WP:TPG

, and impedes consensus-formation.

Skookum1 has repeatedly been pointed to appropriate ways of addressing his grievances. Don't like a CFD closure? Take it to DRV. Don't like an RM closure? Take it to

WP:MR

. But instead of using the established channels to review these issues, he rants about them in other discussions, so nothing ever gets resolved.

I suggested above that mentorship might help. What's your preferred solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

why should I not raise the issue of your motives in those closes, or in starting the CfD, which you still have not provided any tangible rationale per guidelines or conventions; that I supplied examples and direct citation evidence only to have you pronounce all of that as "irrelevant" and then make further demands, is obstructionism pure and simple.

• You stylize my posts as "diatribe(s)" and worse plus other similar/usual NPAs and AGFs you have fielded at me both in the CfD and in the RMs and stonewalled, claiming evidence was still needed - when lots was provided. You ignore the points made by the "oppose" votes, you mumble about consensus and evidence despite the evidence already being there; and re the regions categories you have hinted should also be deleted, you have ignored consensus that lay behind their development and yet now you want a consensus on geography categories and a centralized discussion. To what end? The guidelines and policies already exist, you just refuse to acknowledge them. In that context, why should I not point out the AGF content of the CfD's launch, and your COI with me, personally.
• You have expanded the CfD to several categories and counting, yet when I fielded bulk RMs "procedural" objections were raised....and most of those RMs done individually, other than yours and DavidLeighEllis' were closed contrary to mounting consensus and also, as in the CfD, by ignoring votes and also view stats;
• you made false claims that SOURCES says that only GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar should be used for googles; in fact it says no such thing. TITLE/AT was invoked on the RMs that went in "my" favour (i.e. according to the integrity of the title per policy and also per actual sources) and waved at COMMONNAME as if it somehow bypassed PRECISION and CONCISENESS.
• your resistance to actually debate the evidence provided but instead lecture me on particulars that you demand (they were already provided, I'm convinced you didn't actually read what I posted, as you have before elsewhere) is proof of your AGF in this matter, as is the targeting of a category I created minutes after I created it in the wake of your unilateral and peremptory block, during which you "went after" some of the remaining RMs and gave them "negative closures"....... this is politics, and "in politics, optics is everything. You claiming neutrality and "UNINVOLVED" is laughable.
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack.....
• Move Review is not about issues, it is all about wikiquette; pointless for me to go there, the negative accusations/judgments fielded by you and others here will only resurface there while the issues and guidelines go undebated; an RfC as noted by CBW elsewhere is only about single guidelines as they apply to single articles; so that's not the place to go either as in all cases various policies and guidelines, not just one, apply; RfM maybe, but to me the RfC/U being mumbled about here is just more victimization while the issues remain undebated.
• in the case of the CfD you wave at a convention about political geographic units that, as noted by an "oppose" vote (and also in my points about the different systems of political geography/regionalization within BC), are ORIGINALRESEARCH on the one hand and RECENTISM on the other. There is no policy or guideline supporting your nomination and its expansion; there is only IDONTLIKE IT and your very evident "get Skookum1" attitude and tone of "debate".
• your failure to address evidence and your ignorance of the complete texts of the guidelines you presume to cite, and then rant about my supposed lack of coherence, is just "more of the same" and recognizable in style as similar to the stonewalling and POV forking going on at
  NCET
  ; denial, misrepresentation, condescension, pontification, pretending something someone says doesn't make sense or is relevant, and ongoing demeaning comments about my writing (and my personality) you refuse to (or are unable) to read or logically process.
• I agree with those who say I should stay away from this bearpit and proceed with my work, which I have been doing; but to see the ongoing condemnation and what seems like provocation requires me to clarify the full context of this situation, and point out why your frustrating behaviour does call into question your motives and your very evident AGF towards me. I have contemplated an RfA on you, or an RfC/U, because of your behaviour overall, and your refusal to acknowledge policy or evidence while you continue to drum up hostility towards me. But I dislike process, obviously, and just wanted to be left alone to work on articles; then you came at me with a CfD without any substance behind it whatsoever.
• No doubt you will pronounce this as a rant to avoid having to answer to your behaviour and your violations of titling policy and more. Ranting about me, and provoking me with non sequitur questions and your refusal to acknowledge relevant citations and examples as relevant, point to you being unfit to even comment about "proper discussion" and also the shallow context of your CfD, which as I have said there is vexatious and disruptive. As with Bushranger, I'm not the problem here....I'm a contributing editor finding myself interfered with by people who, to me, have been harassing and demonizing me. When that gets pronounced a "persecution complex", it's just more AGF and NPA and amateur psychiatry masquerading as "proper behaviour".
• for knowing the material and the sources, and for being the one who built the mountain and geography categories, I have been wrongly accused of OWN. What I see instead is people who try to OWN Wikipedia, even referring to their opinions with the royal "we", and generally behaving so as to not encourage contributing editors or give them credit where credit is due, but to control them and, if they don't submit to hectoring and lecturing and AGF comments, propose to get rid of them. All because you have a problem with not being willing or able to understand more text than your impatience or inability can tolerate. And you make a personal issue of it, and have closed CfDs and RMs on the basis of those prejudices towards me. That is "not according to the spirit of the guidelines, and violates the every wikiquette you wrap yourself in while violating it with nearly every post you make in response to me.Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1, you have a long set of complaints about a number of editors, of whom I am one. You make serious allegations against many of them, alleging all sorts of misconduct. The curious thing is that in most cases, it seems to be only you who complains of persecution by them. As I noted above, several uninvolved editors have suggested that you step back and consider why it is that you alone find all these alleged miscreants on your case, and consider what you can do differently to change the situation. So far, I don't see any sign of you doing that.
  You have a few choices in how you can deal with this.
  One option is to continue to post about all your grievances in every forum available to you: ANI, user talk pages, Jimbo's talk, XFDs, RMs, your own talk. That takes up a lot of your time, and maybe it is satisfying to you to air your grievances, but it doesn't change anything. So you remain frustrated, and you also frustrate other editors who want to discuss only the matter in hand. When they complain, you then add them to the list of editors out to get you.
  Another option is for you to use established processes to review decisions which you don't like.
  Wikipedia is not a battleground. To avoid it turning into a battleground, there are a wide range of dispute resolution processes. You choose to neither use those processes, nor to let go and move on from the things which you feel have been unfair. Instead you bring every conflict with you wherever you go, such as denouncing RM closes in a CFD discussion. (That neither helps the CFD make a good decision, nor changes the RM outcome, nor reduces stress on you). That's your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
  ) 17:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack..... And this, right here, summarises the problem with Skookum1's behavior in a nutshell: the suggestion that an editor consider mentoring to better work within Wikipedia's process being considered equivilant to suggesting an editor is mentally deficient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apart from the personal attack, Skookum's comment also displays a rejection of good faith. Despite repeated complaints about the disproportionate time and effort required to read extreme verbosity and off-topic digressions, Skookum1 assumes that the complaint is bad-faith misrepresentation of a lack of ability. The guideline
  WP:TPYES is very clear: "Be concise". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
  ) 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You summarize the situation well, BHG. I think this is a problem of collaboration. Unless an editor has a topic ban, there is nothing preventing any editor from working on any article or project, whether they are an expert or newbie. We don't get to choose who edits which articles, who comments on an AfD or CfD discussion, who votes on an RfA. Every editor, no matter how productive or how long they've been editing, has to deal with this lack of control. Ideally, out of diverse opinions and approaches come stronger articles and better decisions. When things are not ideal, well, like you said, there is always dispute resolution. Liz 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc: This isn't for a punishment. Every time this problem appears on the board not only does Skookums not curb their behavior they continue it on the board discussing the inappropriate attacks. I would suggest indef off the bat but I do believe that people can be reformed (otherwise I would have to give up entirely on the human race) and I am hoping that a month restrictions would make the user realize "Oh hell, they are serious." Then maybe we would see some actual improvement in behavior. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Solution

This is about Wikipedia Categories?? Not

Obviously Skookum1 cannot continue the not concise personalized comments long term. See WP:First Law. Given that they're a 9 year, 50K / 60% mainspace editor [10], "solutions" (such as blocks) that are as likely as not to lead to their departure from the project are not actual solutions.

On the other, BHG stalking his edits post-block isn't ideal. While technically not against the rulz --

• BHG will ignore Skookum1's category activities. (Given 861 admins and 123,717 users, surely it can fall upon someone else to Cfd categories if they're not quite right?)
• Skookum1 agrees to keep their Wikipedia: space posts less than 2000 characters and stop the personalization of disputes. NE Ent 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I appreciate the problem-solving spirit of your suggestion, but I'm not so sure it works.

First, the constraint on Skookum1 doesn't achieve much, because even one post of 2000 characters is grossly excessive in most discussions, and Skookum1 could easily evade even that generous limit by simply making multiple posts, as he often does. I'm not sure how to define a limit, because sometimes posting relevant evidence requires length. This is where I think that a mentor could help him to craft more concise and focused replies.

Your suggestion that he stop the personalization of disputes is a valuable one, and would certainly help. However, he also needs to be constrained to discussing the narrow issue in hand, rather than using each discussion to air his wider grievances.

As to me, I certainly wasn't "stalking" Skookum1; I was looking at his contribs to see the extent of his complaints about me. Since he chosen not to use any of the formal dispute-resolution or review processes (or to ping me when mentioning me), it is the only way to find out where I am the subject of complaint.

Along the way I spotted an odd-looking category, so I examined it. I can see why it is possible to read that CFD nomination as some sort of personal thing, but I just ask editors to look at the grounds for the nomination. This category of rivers was not parented in any other category of rivers, and did not appear to fit into any wider categorisation scheme; the geohpysical regional basis of it is at best diffusely documented.

I would be happy in principle to make a clearer separation between my admin role and my long-standing interest in categories, and thereby ignore Skookum1's category edits in future. If my good faith attempt to open a discussion about a category is seen as blurring lines, then it evidently had an unintended bad effect. I don't share NE Ent's optimism about categories being generally well-scrutinised, but am happy to leave that aside.

My reservation about this is not for me, but that I think it sets an unfortunate precedent. So far as I can see, any editor who has challenged Skookum1's edits or proposals gets accused at length of bad faith. In a long series of RMs, editors who expressed views different to Skookum1's were denounced ferociously; where his opponents agreed with each other, they were labelled as cabals.

I fear that this is setting off on a path where Skookum1 seeks restraints on other editors rather than learning to work collaboratively and follow

WP:TPG. That's just pushing the problem down the road, and impeding the normal scrutiny which editors apply to each others work. Skkoum1's repeated demand to "leave me alone" just isn't viable in a collaborative environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• @
  Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 is 537 words=3,249 characters - longer than some CfD/RM posts she pronounced TLDR as an excuse not to read them (when it was pointed out she shouldn't be using TLDR on discussion boards, she went and dug out a "behavioural guideline"). And what is going on at the CFD is not "normal scrutiny", it is groundless and not normal, but as noted COI/AGF in origin and targeted; disavowals of that are made, but the refusal to acknowledge evidence provided (or in the inability to read/digest it) is what it is. The claim by Neotarf below that my problem is with "every person" [I interact with] is just more typical conflation and misrepresentation and attack-mode "IDONTLIKESKOOKUM1", and the rants here and in other threads about numbers of characters per post overloading wikipedia's servers are ironic; it's fruitless and venal and often mean discussions here and elsewhere that are taking up far more space.....and I know from the BCGNIS template dispute long ago that Jimbo and the MWF told the code-writers to write as if t hey had unlimited space.....so what's the big deal about actual text, or is code more important than words and meanings. You want shorter posts from me? Well, if people weren't stonewalling and tossing NPA/AGF grenades in my path, that would help a lot. I also of course support an interaction ban, and feel it should Bushranger as his own behaviour is demonstrably hostile and his own use of "walls of text" while complaining about mine in the Squamish CfD where he used TLDR as a BLUDGEON, while citing BLUDGEON, is every bit as hypocritical and AGF and destructive and became the focus of BHG's invocation of TLDR to reject that CfD (even though TLDR is not to be used in discussions (it's about articles) without condescending to examine the evidence provided, or acknowledge support votes either.Skookum1 (talk
  ) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, that's classic straw man stuff. I have never cited TLDR against any of your posts. I have repeatedly pointed you towards the behavioural guideline

WP:TPYES

? The problem is not server overload; the problem is editor overload, when discussions are filled with off-topic rambles.

You dispute some closes; time to put up or shut up. If you dispute them, open a move review or deletion review. If you choose not to use the established routes to review them, stop whining about them.

As to the evidence you provided at CFD, I question the significance of some of it. That's a normal part of a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not support any interaction ban, as one is not necessary. What is necessary is that Skookum1 accept that his behavior has not been within the bounds of

continuing to insist it's everyone else's fault, agree to stop trying to accuse others of the behavior he engages in, accept that people disagreeing with him is not attacking him, and agree to engage other editors in a civil and constructive manner even when they disagree with him. I would like to poit out that I have not provided "walls of text" as claimed by Skookum1, nor have I been "demonstratably hostile": I request that Skookum1 provide diffs to support these claims or cease making them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it puzzling, to say the least, how someone who has never interacted with this user can have "attack-mode DONTLIKESKOOKUM1" secret motivations. Whatever. If all of these diffs that other editors have provided are "cherry-picking", then where are the threads that show this user being able to focus on the topic and engage in constructive collaboration? Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil? A more philosophical question--how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar? I consider that highly unlikely. Are we looking at some recent problem--maybe the editor is getting burned out? Maybe it's time to voluntarily step back and take a breather. Skookum. Dude. You're in Ko Samui, and you're wasting your time arguing on Wikipedia? Go to the beach. —Neotarf (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do, every day....it's 50 yards from my porch. And as for being burned out, what's burning me out is the endless attacks on my personality and writing; I'm not burned out for real Wikipedia work, only finding my time eaten up by defending myself from persistent AGF/NPA attacks and this ongoing witchhunt. This hyperbole is AGF in the extreme - "Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil?", and also is a false imputation, as can be seen by those who have shown support for me and the areas which I am working without being treated as I have been here, and in the obstructionist behaviour and hostile closures of RMs and CfDs. This line "how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar" is just "more of the same". This user has contributed huge amounts to titles/articles and also to discussions of all kinds, including weather NPA/AGF accusations on various titles and topics; your pretense that I have "stayed under the radar" i.e. escaped official harrassment is equally specious and also confrontational and is "incitement" of yet more. I'd rather work on real material than have to defend myself against campaigns to get rid of me; I'm not alone in that sentiment, as a glance at various other witchhunts and rants about "walls of text" (while committing same) elsewhere on this board and in its archives. Why don't you go write some articles (since you can't go the beach) and drop the axe-grinding and pitchfork-wielding as you are doing here? I'm not the one being disruptive, but my work is being disrupted and obstructed ("tendentious editing") on a regular basis, including here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So where are your diffs, your uncherry-picked examples of where you are focusing on the topic, and assuming good faith of other editors, rather than making unsupported accusations? —Neotarf (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To

constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. These collective actions create a toxic environment and disrupt dialogue, which have rendered consensus-building discussions all but impossible, e.g. 1, 2, [11], [12], etc. -Uyvsdi (talk

) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

@

the bear doesn't get poked; Skookum1 has shown little sign of being willing to do so, no bear-poking required. All that's needed here is for a simple, good-faith statement that an attempt will be made to keep discussions, regardless of length, on the content and not the contributor or the contributor's motive in the discussion, and the drama will be over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific request Bushranger made was I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, (about the personal stuff), and I think this proposal includes that. While not discounting the points made above (by BHG and Uyvsdi), they're moot unless agree Skookum buys into or is willing to at least discuss the proposal, so I'd prefer to wait for their response before I comment further. NE Ent 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal does not address the overwhelming bulk of the problems, so is not a solution. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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

To recap, they are "personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy." -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It is not just one or two people, or just admins, it is anyone who comes in contact with this user. For example see the personal attacks on this thread. People who volunteer their time for the project should not have to be subjected to verbal abuse. They will either leave or complain. If you try to solve the problem by merely getting rid of any editors who object to personal attacks, you're gonna be dealing with this problem for a looooong time. —Neotarf (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Skookum1

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

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

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

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

Unpicking Skookum1's comment:

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

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

Just stop following Skookum, please. Bushranger and BHG have problems with Skookum, and the reverse, and all of them know it. Then stop following Skookum's categorization work and stop opening CFDs and stop opening ANIs and new sections of ANI. Leave it to other editors and time to have perfection in categories worked out. There is no benefit to wikipedia from the provocation going on. --doncram 11:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So the response to personal attacks should be allow the attacker to drive other editors away from topics where the attacker chooses to work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I read above, skookum was doing new, independent work, and it is the followers sparking contention, i.e. being "attackers" in a general usage sense (probably not in the wikipedia jargon of "personal attack"; in wikipedia we too much allow deeply incivil attacking to go on and then castigate those who react to provocation, saying they are using personal attacks). From what I read above, it was not skookum entering an area where others were working already and opening contention. --doncram 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a definition of "attack" which doesn't fit with any policy I know of. It also misrepresents the nature of the CFD, which was explicitly framed as a question about whether an apparently new form of categorisation was appropriate.

If Doncram's view was accepted, most CFD discussions wouldn't happen, because they relate to categories identified by editors who approach them as a piece of categorisation rather than as a particular topic where they routinely work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To BHG, I don't know about "most" CFDs, but I do know that many AFDs and probably CFDs are in fact attacking in nature. It depends upon apparent motive and perceptions between editors. If there was indeed some past history of conflict, it seems reasonable that Skookum could perceive this CFD to be an attack. It was not a neutral discussion, it was a proposal to delete categories Skookum was setting up. It rambled on with more accusations (of "disrupting" Wikipedia somehow by Skookum separately creating more categories, of Skookum supposedly violating wp:Canvas, and more) that seems like badgering. It was as if Skookum could not dare set up some reasonable-sounding categories without advance permission from one editor. If one editor wants to question an initiative that an experienced editor is proceeding with, do it mildly, literally ask a question at a Talk page or something, and consider whether it couldn't be raised in an RFC eventually, months or years later. It seems confrontational and unnecessary to immediately open a proposal to delete work in progress, and yes that is a kind of attack. And even without me knowing about past history, all the other charges in the CFD plus the opening of this ANI seem to confirm that it was personal, in truth, or at least that it was very reasonable for Skookum to perceive it to be personal.

Speaking not especially about this incident, but about others, Wikipedia would be a lot better if we had a proper process to stop followers who have become perceived by a target to be bullying, from continuing to follow and poke. I do not understand how some editors who know they are being perceived as hurtful and bullying, nonetheless choose to continue with the following and bullying-appearing activities. Avoid the perception of bullying. If you know you are hurting someone, be humane and stop. Let it go, let someone not perceived to be a bully in the situation raise a question some other way later, if indeed anything ever needs to be discussed. Again, I really do not know the parties and the history in this case, so I am not speaking about parties in this case so much. But, it is obvious to me that contending against quite reasonable-seeming categories with only lame "reasons" or with attacks on other fronts like claims of personal attacks or whatever, is really really not helpful for building wikipedia or for making Wikipedia a nice place. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD

to be quite fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Any edit is open to challenge, and it is then discussed. That's a crucial part of the whole collaborative process by which content is scrutinised

There are broadly two ways of discussing an issue. The first is one-to-one discussion; the second is at a centralised location, such as XFD, which exists for discussing various types of content.

There are multiple advantages to having those discussions in a centralised venue. It gets wider input to the discussion, and it ensures that the discussion is archived in a place where it will be easy to find in future.

With categories, there are great advantages to having those discussions sooner rather than later. If the categorisation scheme stays, those building it know that they are on the right track. If the consensus is that it's not a good idea, then everyone avoids a lot of wasted work.

Categories are different to articles. Articles largely stand or fall on their own merits, but categories are often part of a much wider system. Geographical categories work as intersections between consistent sets, where we have a broadly consistent set of topics intersecting with a broadly consistent geographical framework (Category:Roads in New York and Category:History of New York parallels Category:Roads in Yorkshire and Category:History of Yorkshire). Introducing a new geographical framework creates a set of categories which don't fit in that structure. Far from being "lame" (as you put it), it seems to me to be much better to have a centralised discussion at an early stage about the viability of the proposed new geographical framework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG for responding. But you didn't start a centralised, neutral discussion in a leisurely RFC or conversationally at a WikiProject talk page. You started a CFD which called for relatively immediate deletion of the categories that Skookum had set up, which is simply not friendly or neutral. You called for stopping Skookum from continuing (you labelled other Skookum edits creating categories to be "disruptive", while I really do not see how they could be viewed as disruptive), and seemed to be seeking to criminalize Skookum's actions on various not-central-to-the-content/category "issue" that could be discussed. And you were forcing immediate discussion, when it was not convenient for Skookum. Perhaps some discussion, saying you think the larger implications oughta be considered sometime, could have led to productive discussion. And the target could be asked and have opportunity to explain his intentions, whether they were limited to covering just the rivers of British Columbia for example, and then would he agree that the time would be ripe to call for a larger discussion, rather than interrupting and freezing the productive edits immediately, as if there was some huge crisis (not the case, no downside present for Wikipedia readers). And, it was you in particular who was pushing, and while I am not familiar with the background, I gathered that you and Skookum had previous confrontations. IMHO the wikipedia policy should be that an administrator/editor who previously played a policing/attacking/monitoring role that came to be perceived as harassing should be discouraged/disqualified from doing that again...there could be a random assignment of another administrator or just leave it to chance for anyone else to pick up a new issue, but whoever was involved previously and is perceived as being bullying should not be the one. Some one else oughta be appointed, if there is actual real damage to readers going on. (Again please forgive me that I am not completely clear on whether a characterization of past interaction like that applies here with you and Skookum.) One reason for such a rule is that a previously involved policeperson has an obvious apparent-to-the-target conflict of interest or bias, that the previous enforcer-type may be more likely to want to prove the target is a criminal, to justify their past action. And whatever a perceived bully says is quite reasonably taken differently by the target than the same words from a perceived-to-be uninvolved other editor. This is not to suggest that any violator of Wikipedia policies should be allowed to disqualify whoever they want, merely by falsely claiming bullying. There need to be some standards. However I perceived the discussion above and at the CFD to indicate that there was evidence suggestive of appearance of bullying. (Standards of evidence oughta be defined somewhere...I have some ideas).

Also, and this is a huge point that I have thought a lot about, you reference

wp:BRD

guideline. From past experience, i STRONGLY believe that BRD guideline ought to be clarified to express whose edit is the Bold vs. whose is the Revert, when one editor is creating a bunch of stuff, believing it to benign, and another editor follows. I strongly believe it works best if the creating editor is understood by default to be creating, not boldly doing anything. And a following editor is doing the Bold step, if they interrupt and delete. So the creating editor is given some deference, and may Revert, and go on (and it should all be discussed at a suitable Talk page of course, to exchange views and so on). It should NOT be understood that any following editor gets the right to call their edit deleting to be the Revert and claim power to call any reversion by the creating editor to be edit warring, past BRD. It simply is horrible policy, to empower anyone/everyone to interrupt and have precedence over a productive creating editor, who really probably does have a good rationale of what they are doing. Later, eventually, in an established article, the BRD process would work normally. BRD is written about bringing change productively to established articles, it is not written properly to apply to new works. Wikipedia is not well served by overly empowering following critics; Wikipedia is well served by empowering creators with some respect, some deference, some "ownership" in a good way, for a time (definitely not forever, but the creator should be given some space and some power for some amount of time).

So, BHG, i don't know where you were going with mention of BRD, whether you wanted to claim Skookum was in violation of that, but my sentiment would be that a) Skookum was creating editor and has right to call a following edit to be a Bold, unexpected change that Skookum can fairly Revert, and then, yes, b) Skookum should indeed participate in discussion eventually, but there should be no rush and the discussion should be in a neutral venue and not with ultimatums of imminent deletion and other negativity. --doncram 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD, then seek a consensus to do so, and let me know how you get on. But in the meantime, please don't berate me for working within long-established policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read

WP:NPA. I did not attack. I made a !vote in the CfD, speaking civilly, and that only got a questioning response - it was when I cautioned Skookum1 that he was over the personal-attack line in his 'discussions' with BHG that I got blistered. If I'm "following" him it's because he continued attacking me at the CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To Bushranger, you may well have not meant an attack, but by Skookum's reaction that editor did seem to perceive it that way, and it was adding on to other I-am-guessing-to-be-reasonable belief by Skookum that there was unjustified attacking type stuff going on. So, back off, say it is not important to you, let the editor proceed. My humble opinion. We don't have enough consideration for avoiding the appearance of bullying, and we don't generally have enough appreciation for a target's opinion. Frankly, if someone says they are being bullied and it is not incredibly absurd to think they really mean that, and they are not doing it for some crazy commercial selfish advantage (not the case here), then don't dispute that, let the target say that. It should not be a crime (a personal attack) for someone to say the truth that they feel they are being treated unfairly, that others are seeming to bully. If they perceive it, it is real. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"say it is not important to you": This is, unfortunatly, exactly what I did, before anything else - and I got attacked for it. Saying that he believe he's being treated unfarily is not a personal attack; saying that other editors are mentally deficient, and making up accusations out of whole cloth, are (claiming, multiple times, that I started this ANI to get him banned, and also his statement that I "posted lengthy diatribes against me" - it should be noted that whenever Skookum1 has been asked to provide diffs for his claims there is no response). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, so the $100,000 question is this: Skookum apparently is here to build the encyclopedia. However, part of that "building" process is the community-nature, and the relationships involved. How do we convince Skookum that content-building AND playing nicely with others is the only way forward? What will it take? A topic ban? A short block? Other restrictions? Their response to anything is to immediately personalize-and-attack, and that's not acceptable behaviour the panda ₯’ 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's the $100,000 question on, like, every ANI thread. "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??" --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly believe it needs to be something that will make the person take stock. I suggested a one month block above per this mindset, though no one else seems to be weighing in other than doc that cast allusions to me doing it as some sort of punishment. I am a pessimest so I don't think one month will change skookums attitude but I am someone that gives the benefit of doubt. Hell if Skookums could just make attempts at not attacking others and actually working with the community I will happily withdraw the suggestion. However, as far as I can tell and see, I believe that skookums will reject that out of hand because the editor still sees their behavior as acceptable and not an issue. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Skookum1 for 12 hours for the personal attack noted above, and am considering closing the CFD under IAR, with a recommendation to revisit it in a month if the filing parties still feel it's necessary. The categories won't hurt anyone if they stay for a month, and Skookum1 has made coherent and well founded arguments in their defense (amongst the other stuff) on the CFD proposal.

If anyone are on good terms with Skookum1 and think they'll listen to you, please engage with them and try to get them to back off from personalizing things once the block expires. I and others have said so here and on their talk page but to no good effect so far. I desperately desire not to drive Skookum1 away entirely, but the sniping has to stop. Please assist in social pressure to reform their behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from what I see, Skookum wouldn't listen to a free pair of top-of-the-line Beats headphones the panda ₯’ 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: I would not oppose an early closure of the CFD, so long as it is done in some form which doesn't prejudice the possibility of reopening it a later date. There is some good discussion in there (on all sides), but there are also too much other stuff to make it easy for other editors to follow, so an early closure may be a suitable step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have closed the CFD as an administrative No Consensus / IAR close, with a recommendation that it not be refiled for a month to allow for the discussion to cool down. This explicitly does not prevent a refiling a month from now (or sooner, if you ignore my advisory waiting period, which has no policy-based authority other than please for the love of god let it calm down first ...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Big mistake! Skookum1 will simply continue to create more categories requiring more cleanup if consensus is to not have them. Are you going to cleanup the mess? If you want to do that, you have to block Skookum1 from creating categories for the same time period. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

Request

As the admin who blocked Skookum1, I would like to request ANI's assistance in reducing tensions here.

Skookum1 feels, rightly or wrongly, that the ANI episode and criticism elsewhere was a form of ganging up on them. This has clearly been driving their behavior.

I believe that everyone is now aware that a wide contingent of editors feel that there's a significant problem here. The above threads show a consensus on that point, but not unanimous by any means. I would like to note for the record that the message is understood and received by uninvolved admin (hopefully, admins).

I also believe that Skookum1 is widely felt, including by some of the commenters in the emerging consensus, to be a valuable content creator and editor.

I would like to request that we attempt to simply de-escalate from here. No good outcome is served by further poking. I would like to archive the sections above later this evening.

Skookum1 clearly felt that the threads above were contributing to the ganging up, and said so above and on their talk page and on the CFD. Ideally they can just walk away from the discussions and leave it be.

I would also like to see if anyone with experience mentoring would be willing to engage with Skookum1 and see if they can assist in cooperative tension reductions.

If there is significant objection to archiving I won't do so, but hope everyone will take a deep breath and let that be the outcome.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"This has clearly been driving their behavior." Skookum1's nonstop personal attacks against any user with an opposing opinion dates back months prior to any AN/I. BrownHairedGirl and The Bushranger just happen to be the most recent recipients of Skookum1's unsubstantiated accusations of harassment and attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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

I won't oppose a closure, but I will point out the behavior started well before any of the claimed 'ganging up' - it was a result of it. If it's felt it's best to kick the can down the road, though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's better to kick the can down the road. Plenty of uninvolved admins are out there that can archive this. Procedure should be taken into account here. There are appeals in RL courts that succeed because procedure was not properly followed. "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. Doc talk 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - You two have each blocked the user and want to close the case. Let unbiased, uninvolved admins do it for you instead. Doc talk 03:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I just don't understand how this user could have been allowed to operate here for so long, with so many edits and so relatively few blocks (though they are increasing quickly), if he's such an extreme civility case with the "nonstop personal attacks". How can this be? How much have we really been slacking over these attacks until now?! Shame on all of us for letting it get this far, really. Doc talk 07:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, British Columbia geography is rarely an area of high conflict. Skookum is a better editor when he's left to edit on his own. His past conflicts (usually over politics) have often been short bursts without quite this level of ranting, and he's often taken a break before going too far. In this case, Skookum took the CFD extremely personally and that magnified what usually just simmers under the surface. And the dumb thing is, he needn't have reacted the way he did. The CfD itself was leaning on the keep side of no consensus. Resolute 13:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm all in favour of de-escalation, but this bullshit idea that the above thread is somehow "bullying" or "ganging up on" has to be nipped in the bud. The intent of ANI is to provide a
  WP:IDHT, the rhetoric gets ratcheted up a few notches. That is what Skookum needs to learn and understand - a broad swath of the community finds him to be pesky. The sheer quantity (or "gang") should tell Skookum just how many people he's pissed off. Look, if someone runs for town council election, and they get 1 vote, and 10,000 votes against them ... those 10,000 didn't "gang up" on them! Those 10,000 are independent voices - just like in ANI the panda ₯’
  08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not defending Skookum1's "peskiness" for other users. It is what it is. I only care about his right to due process. The odds are stacked against him: and it interests me like F. Lee. Meh. Doc talk 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Doc9871: One of the persistent problems is Skookum1's own repeated refusal to follow due process. He disputes some RM and CFD closures I made. That's fine; any editor is entitled to disagree with a close, so we have move review and deletion review. Both review types are solely about whether the closure reflected due process.
  But Skookum1 refuses to use those review processes, and instead sounds off in multiple forums about the alleged unfairness of the closures (a lot of his posts here relate to them). What's with the concern about due process when Skookum1 refuses to use it? Where does that leave closers' rights to due process? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer that except that he is in a decidedly different "process", with the blocks and all the negative attention. He is being labelled as a wiki-criminal, and the process I was referring to is the "wiki-criminal defense process". Tough gig! Doc talk 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Pursuing that "criminal" analogy, suppose X feels that the courts have treated them unfairly. In this particular system, they have an absolute right to appeal, without any cost, and with no need to seek leave to appeal. All they need to do is to ask the appeal court to review the earlier judgments. No need to prepare a brief, or attend the hearing (tho they ae free to do both if they want to).

Instead of taking that route, they enter other courts, disrupting proceedings by shouting about how they have been the victim of an awful injustice. In each case, they are told that they could appeal, and they still refuse. Eventually, some of the other courts start saying "this is contempt of court", and begin contempt-of-court proceedings to discuss sanctions available.

That's the sort of cycle we are in here. For "appeals court", we have move review and delrev. For "other courts" we have ongoing XFDs and RMs. For "contempt-of-court proceedings" we have ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. BHG, this is not at all a fair legal process, and you are absolutely wrong to imply that justice is free for a targeted person being criminalized in Wikipedia. The target is criminalized, dragged down, in an ANI proceeding, or in CFD or AFD, where the target does not enjoy participating and it is hugely demanding and cost-imposing. While it may be enjoyable, or is at least less repugnant, for the accuser(s). It is effectively way too easy, too free of cost, for the follower/critic/accuser(s) to open multiple "trials", imposing costs on a target in Wikipedia. In the U.S. legal system there are counters: a plaintiff has to pay fees, and incur legal costs that they may never recover, and they risk getting deemed by a judge to be frivolous/nuisance. In many civil and other courts a judge can rule the frivolous plaintiff to have wasted the defendant's time and the court's time, and to fine the plaintiff, even requiring the plaintiff to pay all the defendant's legal fees plus a further fine. It is absurd to suggest that this ANI court is free, or that DRV or other appeals courts are free for the target. --doncram 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) (p.s. BHG i replied above to your last posts above.)

ANI is an arduous process for anyone involved (and so ArbCom many times more so), but DRV and MR are lightweight for the petitioner. All they need to do is to write an opening statement, and let it roll. The person being held to account is the closer, not the petitioner (who can do more if they choose, but many don't).

In this case it would be a lot less work for Skookum1 to open move reviews than to continue writing at length about the alleged injustices in multiple forums. Not only would it provide an answer one way or another to some of his grievances, it would also allow other discussions to focus on the issue in hand, reducing stress on everyone including Skookum1.

The practice of breaking down problems and trying to fix them one at a time is a crucial tool for solving all sorts of problems. Not doing that is what leads to the patterns of conflict which come to ANI.

I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.

Similar processes are familiar to people writing in many other contexts. As a student, my writing was dissected twice a week in tutorials, by fellow-students briefed on how to find holes in my work. As a policy analyst, my colleagues and I performed destructive testing on every piece of writing any of us produced; we canned a significant chunk of each others work, and sent. As a journalist, every piece of work was dissected in an editorial conference, where justifying is existence and content was part of the job.

I think that one of the very big problems Wikipedia faces is that this sort of scrutiny is an essential part of quality control, but many enthusiastic editors lack experience of working in this way. We don't do enough to convey how important it is, or to assist editors in learning the techniques required. When I first started editing, every edit page used to warn editors with words something like "your contribution may be edited without mercy". Those words may have been a bit harsh, but it's a pity we no longer have something in a similar vein to remind contributors that we are not here as bloggers. We are collaboratively developing the world's most widely-read encyclopedia, and editors should expect that any contribution may be challenged, debated, modified, or even removed. Editors who just want to be "left alone" are in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You say: “I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.” However your actions do not support your words above since you seem to have tendency to pursue editors whom you disagree with at CFD to other areas of Wikipedia.

Here are a couple of examples:

• User_talk:Ottawahitech#Category:CNBC_women
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_20#What_sort_of_edits_are_acceptable_on_Scotiabank

XOttawahitech (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:BOOMERANG

.

My post about CNBC women was a warning[13] to you about your

WP:IDHT problem, which was taking you into the tendentious editing territory. If you want to pursue this, I can set out the full history ... but for now, note that I reminded you afterwards[14]

that the category was deleted, and that there was a consistent consensus against such categories.

As to WP:CANWP, I posted there because another editor started a new thread on my talk page, where they asked me as an admin to comment on a dispute. I replied on my talk about the policy issues, and as promised there I posted to WP:CANTALK explicitly noting that I had been asked to comment[15]. The issue in that case was that you were abusing a talk page as a

WP:SOAPBOX, to push your POV. I asked you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page[16]. You refused[17]

.

That's a series of boomerangs you have launched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@

letting me me know

my feedback is important to you. I would also like to state that, even if it appears otherwise to you, I don’t believe that you are acting in bad faith, at least not intentionally. I think you are overworked, like most active admins on Wikipedia, and you just don’t have the time to check things out carefully before rushing to impose solutions.

You try to do too much, continuing to create hundreds of categories, while at the same time participating in discussion about deleting categories created by others (COI?), and branching out to other areas of adminship that involve blocking and “telling” off other editors. I don’t believe you take enough time to truly investigate situations before taking sides in disputes, but , at least in my book, that does not make you as bad as a few admins/established editors here who taunt, harass and stalk other editors on purpose strictly out of malice. I do hope you become cognizant the fact that your actions as an admin are highly visible, and as such contribute to the persecution of editors who happen to get caught in your path.

This is not the time and place to respond to accusations against me personally, but I would like to state that as far as

WP:BOOMERANG ( a Wikipedia essay about editors who report others to Wikipedia notice boards) that in all my years at Wikipedia I have never reported anyone. XOttawahitech (talk

) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Stop being silly. The boomerang is that you piggybacked on this thread to make complaints about me, and simply highlighted your own misuse of a discussion forum for soapboxing, and your own habit of repeatedly creating categories of a type which you know there is a consensus to delete. Rather than retracting that, you try to shift the ground to a general slur. Not nice.

Indeed, my actions as an admin are highly visible. One of the consequences is that is some editors try to do what you have been doing, i.e. looking for some muck to throw. Enjoy that sport if you like, but you'd do better at if you took more time to figure out what you are actually launching. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't report anyone just tried to derail another discussion with your soapbox...same thing! Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 16:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...why, exactly, are we using

Five Pillars don't apply to you, we need to do somthing about it, even if it's a sternly-worded last and final warning (which was, in fact, the original point of this ANI filing). And we absolutley need to avoid sending the message that an editor can get out of being sanctioned for flaunting policy by claiming that they're being "bullied". - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

02:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Learning how AN/Is operate has been vaguely educational, but this is clearly going nowhere. While nonbinding, perhaps the suggestion of an RfC/U makes more sense, especially if a only warning or mentorship is being proposed. No editor thus far has been able to get through to Skookum1 that uncivil behavior is not acceptable. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

@Uyvsdi: This may be going nowhere. But whatever the decision (or non-decision) here, I strongly urge that those who have been opposing sanctions against Skookum1 to see if there is some way in which they can assist him to find a new way of working so that he can experience debates more positively. Call it mentorship, or helping hand, or a quiet word behind the scenes, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger has zero credibility regarding what does or doesn't constitutue unambiguous personal attacks ([...] stating they are mentally deficient [...]). And BrownHairedGirl, Skookum1's desire to "be left alone" isn't a rejection of the concept of fundamental WP content discussion with editor peers as you suggest, but obviously having his time & attention as voluntary expert contributor being sucked down a black hole through miserable, manufactured, demoralizing, demonizing complaints from editors miffed by him at some point then getting payback in cesspool let's-set-him-up-for-an-indef-block threads like this one. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Spookem1`s defense that he is being harassed is not going to stop him from being blocked, in my view. He should be blocked for his repeated, after-warning, Personal attacks. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but given your self-described status as a "Advanced stealth fighter in operation Wikipedia Enduring Freedom," you're not the guy I'm gonna be marching behind on this matter. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTHERE intent, I recommend blocking. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?

) 16:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please

do not make unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If Skookum has valid grievances against other users, why has it not been brought to the proper forums, with diffs? This has been pointed out over and over. Without diffs, these are, at best, merely wild accusations, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks. —Neotarf (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, when Skookum1 is asked to provide diffs to back up accusations he is making, that particular thread of conversation abruptly stops. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are the diffs

@The Bushranger: You say above that User:Skookum1 has not provided diffs, but neither have you.

It appears that even though you are the one who started this this whole ani-thread you feel you are above providing support for your accusations. This is a mystery since your complaint is taking an enormous toll on the community, and to me at least, is looking more and more like a Witch-hunt than anything else. Your very short opening remarks talk vaguely about another ANI (which?) and alludes to behavior by Skookum1 which is not supported by one single diff. It seems that the whole basis for your complaint is that Skookum has rejected your “attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters”.

As an uninvolved editor it seems to me that you feel that Skookum1 should automatically defer to you. Since I have not had any(?) dealings with you I do not understand why you expect other editors to automatically defer to your suggestions.

Respectfully, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the diffs he provided in his opening statement?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As Obiwankenobi says, please re-read the opening statement for diffs. And if anybody wants specific further diffs from the thoroughly PA-laden CFD, all they have to do is ask and they shall receive, although it would only be a slight exaggeration to say there would be fewer diffs from that that did not have PAs. The previous ANI is here (and as it happens, also here from 2007, demonstrating that this is not a new problem and has only gotten worse). The accusation that I "expect other editors to automatically defer to [my] suggestions" is wholly unfounded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

An attempt at a summary

Let me try again. (1) Everyone agrees that Skookum needs to start being nice fast or he is going to be out the door for disruptive behavior. (2) Everyone agrees that Skookum is a productive, expert content-writer who is here to build an encyclopedia. (3) Some people think Skookum feels persecuted, particularly in deletion discussions, and lashes out — a correctable situation; others think this behavior is a fundamental personality trait and that collaborative work is impossible for him. (4) Some people think this is already a lost cause; others think there needs to be some sort of active mentoring process to turn this downward spiral around. (5) While all agree that it is enormously annoying that this situation continues to continue, most people think that further blocking or banning sanctions are not justified at this time. Fair enough summary? Carrite (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional note: I've been in touch with Skookum off wiki. He strikes me as rational, and no, the emails are not 20,000 words each. I'll volunteer as "behind the scenes advisor" if such is desired. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My question is: How long will we keep giving him more leash?! We should at least give him a final warning, because he has been given way more chances then he should get. It seems he can get away with no block or maybe a couple hour long block at best. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not dealing with a child that is going to be impressed by "final warnings." He'll either figure out how to disagree with people without throwing cinderblocks or he won't. Obviously he doesn't have infinite time to start doing this... Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookums is not required to be nice. Hell be abbrassive all day, the line is only crossed when talking about other individuals either obliquely or directly. If the attacks on other contributers stop, it would be a huge step forward. That is the primary problem, though getting the individual to actually collaborate is also high on the list. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite.

WP:CIVIL is a policy, and a long-standing one. Civility involves a lot more than simply refraining from attacks. NPA would be a good start, but that alone isn't enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 19:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes but I have no known exampled of civility ever being something that gets someone banned since it is subjective. I have seen more than a few people at ANI for civility and those always putter out. I would like Skookums to be more civil but if we work on one thing at a time we might see improvements. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have tried reading Skookum's material. It's utterly exhausting. It's nothing but petty accusations against other editors. It goes on and on...and on some more. I don't what the solution is, but somebody's gotta make it stop. This situation has gotten completely out of hand. Two from one (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that many of the participants here want to see
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains in The Signpost to get a better grasp of what Skookum1 has done, is doing, and is trying to do on Wikipedia. I believe most people would find this an easy educational read. XOttawahitech (talk
  ) 18:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  Ottawa, that's a bit of a red herring. I haven't seen anyone in this huge discussion deny that Skookum1 has made a significant contribution to content. The problem is that many others make significant contributions too, and since we don't work alone, editors need to interact civilly and discuss issues productively. Skookum1's aggressive personalisation of disagreement drives away other editors.
  User:Spike Wilbury summarised it succinctly above: "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: you said above that you value Skookum’s content contributions to Wikipedia. If so, then why did you nominate his categories for deletion (added to earlier comment on April 17 and on April 18 of 2014) as soon as he started working on them? According to your own rules at CfD this would force Skookum1 to stop work on any related category work while your nomination was in progress. Wouldn’t a rational editor conclude that you are trying to stop his work? XOttawahitech (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The use of

  personal attacks against other editors when they disagree with him, to the point of attempting to drive them away from areas that he edits, that are both unfounded and that he will not or cannot substantiate. This is the problem, and this is what has to change, as civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

  22:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  How obnoxious. From my direct experience with you, you're one of the least civil editors around, User:The Bushranger, you make your own personal attacks and accuse others constantly of WP:NPA. Your own behavior as admin is tendentious BATTLEGROUND while lecturing others about collegiality and pillars. You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent". You should get off your civility soapbox since you're no model. (And please stop wikilinking WP:CIVIL as though we are all idiots and need your gradeschooling.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  IHTS, please stop making unsubstantiated

  WP:HOUNDING. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

  07:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Unlike you, I don't write things I'm not able to back up. There are 1000 ways to be uncivil short of using foul language, and you're the master of many of them. (Example: four "please"s in your above paragraph, each prefacing false and hypocritical accusation.) The fact is if there are valid gripes about Skookum1 collegiality and/or editing behavior, RfC/U is →thataway. (As admin you should know that. But it is so much more expedient when you want an indef block to appeal for a "warning" here at the lynch-mob-board, huh!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  RFC/U is indeed thataway (and points for copying my writing style, another indication of your

  personal attacks upon me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

  21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  You're pathetic Bushranger, filled w/ bull and always have the last word of paper tiger. You should shut up and don't address me directly, my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me. In my book you are supreme hypocrite and your accusations are never subject to scrutiny or examination, so you can exhibit as much blowhard behavior as you like and you know you can get by with same. You have no moral and especially no intellectual authority, you have only your pathetic admin badge and blocking bat, which you've already used on me. Your Wikistalking accusations are spurious and untrue, you are IMO an abusive admin and need to be de-sysop'd. Why don't you tell the world again here, how the name-call of classic

  narcissist is *not* a personal attack. You have no credibility what is or isn't PA after that, and should stop the condescending wikilinking of same as if you do. Ihardlythinkso (talk

  ) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  "my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me" - I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue as you have only posted here addressing me, and I request you retract that statement immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some back-channel mentoring is an excellent idea. One possible way of managing the problem is a one comment limit on deletion discussions for a while. Would that help, do you think? Guy (Help!) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Probably not. He would just make the one comment (even if about 2000 bytes) on multiple message boards as in [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] instead of just at Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for sanctions on Ihardlythinkso

I have attempted to adopt a water-off-a-duck's-back policy regarding the continued personal attacks and

Lots of personal attacks and definite hounding since the individual popped into the conversation with a personal attack. I would suggest an IBAN, unless there are additional items to take into consideration (i.e. other IBANs). If anyone has better information I am open to changes to this proposal. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Ihardlythinkso was handed a mutual interaction ban against another editor ten days ago [28]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's so damning, isn't it? (Or at least, you'd like it to be. How about offering readers to go read that AN in totality, rather than attempt to cast defaming aspersions. Oh but of course, all decisions on AN are just and fair and equitable -- I forgot, please forgive.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then I would see my IBAN and raise it an indef. If you vehemently attack people to the point where you need multiple IBANs you need to either learn to deal with people in a reasonable capacity or be absent. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Continuing the "water off a duck's back" approach would have served you well, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly there comes a point where when somebody repeatedly and willfully attacks you with statements that are utterly counterfactual and who continues to do so despite repeated requests they stop that that is no longer an option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • More importantly, it's not Carrite's job to determine what level of abuse other editors should put up with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • @Chris Cunningham, as if you didn't harass me at at Tech Helpdesk when I simply asked a tech question re font setting to display Unicode characters, chiding and blaming me there for "policy" established at WP:CHESS that I had nothing to do with. And it isn't as if you've advised/warned/threatened several times to tear down Template:Algebraic notation, even though I already told you to go ahead and make the changes you want (that you will receive no opposition from this user/me) but then never followed up. After our lengthy discussion that went nowhere because you just pushed your POV and exclaimed "TL;DR" when replying in good-faith back to your concerns and issues at Talk:Algebraic notation. So really, you are very very neutral regarding me, right, everyone believes you. (LOL.) Just more cesspool enemy detractors at the infamous ANI cesspool board that gives the entire WP a great reputation. So just keep it up, you're doin' great. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I wasn't even talking about you, but congratulations on showing the class that you really are incapable of interaction with other editors without airing your entire list of grievances with them in public on each occasion. That's problematic in itself, but at least it's obvious to all honest onlookers. What's less obvious is that Carrite has long deliberately cultured this atmosphere by defending this behaviour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an administrator for the love of god close this thread? It is a predictable drama magnet that is going nowhere. It never should have been started. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I got about 4 paragraphs into this, then scrolled (for a while) to the bottom. Editors need to back away and stop beating the dead horse. In addition, some thicker skin is in order for the people that believe it is a personal attack to insinuate someone has a lack of knowledge in a subject matter. I mean... really? Grow a pair; someone has to say it. Heck, even "you're being stupid" is more of a personal attack, but not enough to run and tell an adult. Give skookum some time so that he doesn't think there is a cabal after him, and maybe he'll be more receptive and less defensive. Food for thought. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: Skookum1's habit of personal attacks was reported on ANI back in 2007. The current spate of personal attacks has been going on for several months. How much time do you suggest he needs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has said insinuating someone has a lack of knowledge in a subject area is a personal attack. Implying that an editor is mentally deficient, however, is, and that was after a wide variety of increasingly virtulent PAs were slung otherwise. I'm disappointed that there is still the air of "Skookum1 has done nothing wrong and bad, bad terrible admins for going after him" here, but what can you do, I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

But calling another editor a "classic

narcissist", which (if you read the lede to that linked article in the name-call) is a diagnosable personality disorder, is not a PA??? (Please explain so we can all understand your assessment re what is PA and what isn't.) It's a matter of credibility of your vociferously announced opinions and accusations, hello. Ihardlythinkso (talk

) 12:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@

wp:ANI was necessary. XOttawahitech (talk

) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If anyone needed convincing, in 2014, that Skookum1 had behavioural issues incompatible with collegial editing around here, then said person isn't capable of being convinced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thumperward: I do not normally participate on this notice board, so am not aware of previous gossip that may or may not have convinced me to join the mob. All I am saying is that this lengthy discussion has not convinced me that it should have been started with the scanty evidence it provides. I also just noticed that User:The Bushranger did not discuss this issue with Skookum1 on his talk page as this notice board requires ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.”) XOttawahitech (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As with RFC/U, that option was not taken due to the fact that it would not have had a productive result and would only have resulted in more of the same; in addition, one does not ask the user one seeks to have warned to warn themselves. As for 'scanty evidence', if the evidence above is 'scanty' (considering the entire CfD was provided as evidence), I'm not sure what isn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• mentoring A suggestion was made above that perhaps mentoring would help. @Skookum1:, is this something you'd be willing to consider? I'd be happy to work with you to find a suitable mentor (I'd volunteer myself but I'm guilty of some of the same walls-o-text so would not be the best mentor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum was offended by the suggestion of mentoring, so that's a dead end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's getting worse

An attempt by User:Resolute to persuade Skookum1 to moderate his approach has been unsuccessful. See User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this.

Most of it is just the usual verbosity, and a large chunk of it is repeated allegations of bad faith in my closures of XFDs and RMs, including assertions that I made "bad closures and false invocations of guidelines that do not, in fact, say what is being claimed", "Suggesting that I should show BHG good faith when she has showed me none at all, whether to do with the facts of the Squamish matter, or the presentations of citations and policy in the RMs".

However, the bit that catches my attention is : I collapsed them to avoid yet another invocation of "walls of text" and TLDR; the latter is not supposed to be used on discussion pages at all and its use, as it says clearly, is seen as unCIVIL...but was the pretext for ignoring all the very valid arguments on the Squamish CfD, and part of that close. "She" has since found an actual "behavioural guideline" to use instead in such instances; it's one of the many reasons the Squamish CFD close was bunk and illegal; but as I've found out by looking around, places like Move Review and Dispute Resolution and RfC are not about lookign at issues and guidelines, but only about wikiquette and "conduct".. Not about content, in other words, but about editors.

This repeats yet gain the false charge that I invoked TLDR; I didn't use that term, or link to that page. It also claims that the close was "illegal", which is nonsense; an editor may believe that the close was wrong, but WP does not have laws. Above all, if an editor believes that a close was flawed, they can take it to review, where uninvolved editors can assess whatever case Skookum1 wants to make about flaws in the closure. However, instead of doing that, Skookum1 continues to make a stream of vicious allegations about me, repeatedly denouncing my integrity. This is pure

The worst bit, though is Skookum1's use of scare quotes in referring to me as she: "She" has since found an. This is a pure ad hominem attack. It is nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my judgement or conduct; it's an attack on me as a person and as a woman by trying to problematise my gender. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks at first glance that he was just using "she" in place of "BHG" to allude to you instead of mentioning you directly. Can you explain specifically how the edit "problematise(s)" your gender? Accusations like this should not be taken lightly at all. Doc talk 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What other purpose do the scare quotes serve? If it was simply a ref to me without mentioning my name, they were superfluous. The usage is well-described in the article scare quotes: "quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence of Skookum1 problematizing women editors there based on his use of scare quotes here. If I am wrong, so be it. But I just don't see it based on what you've presented. Doc talk 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, if you were described to as an "editor", would you understand what the scare quotes were trying to say about you? As in look what that "editor" has done to the page? It's the same as look what that so-called editor has done to the page.
(Note, I am not trying cast aspersions on you, just to illustrate the use of the technique)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor is transgendered, and that editor identifies as being born as one gender but now lives as the other gender, and some editor comes along refers to them in scare quotes as "He" or "She" despite their declaration: I would see a "gender-bias" personal attack very clearly. Not here. You identify as a female, and I firmly think that him referring to you as "she" was simply his way of not mentioning your name. To even suggest borderline misogyny here is a bit irresponsible with this evidence. Doc talk 01:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please to be not mansplaining what BHG is intended to take from an unashamedly incivil editor's grammatical constructs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Chuckles) Doc talk 02:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't fault you for being annoyed, BHG. I'm trying with him, but evidently not getting anywhere. I can actually understand why you are thinking what you are with the use of "She", however, in this one specific case I do think Skookum intended the quotes for emphasis rather than to cast aspersions on your gender. I am also wondering if he meant to use double apostrophes to form She but ended with the quotation marks instead. Resolute 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We have to put frustration aside. Frustration is not "evidence". Whatever issues Skookum1 has here, if you don't have evidence of "gender discrimination" by him, it is completely unfounded and should be retracted. It doesn't matter how unpopular he is. It's unfounded. Doc talk 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I really wonder if you understand my point. I do not allege gender discrimination. I was noting a personal attack in the form of trying to problematise the gender of a woman with whom he has a disagreement, by suggesting that she is not really a woman or lacking womanly qualities. It's a classic way of denigrating women, frequently used for example in the portrayals of Margaret Thatcher by some of her opponents.

I am also astonished that when the thread User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this is replete with diatribes against my alleged bad-faith abuse of admin powers by an editor who admantly refuses to use established procedures to assess those actions, I am being asked to retract. It seems that Doc's view is that there is no need to seek retraction of any of that, but that the target of that abuse should retract her complaint. Strange world :(

Maybe it's time I put away my "computer" and stopped working tonight on this "encyclopedia". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I mention only the most serious accusation because it very serious indeed. I ask again: do you have any unambiguous evidence that he is intentionally referring to you as "not really a woman or lacking womanly qualities?" People that discriminate against others based on race, gender, etc. are routinely (and quickly) excluded here for very good reason. Doc talk 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you have mansplained the evidence away. And you continue to try to mansplain my complaint as being about discrimination, when it isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"

Mansplained" is a term to describe what I've been saying? I'm operating on the assumption that "she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender"? AGF. Seriously. Doc talk

03:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, how many times do we repeat the cycle of me pointing out that I didn't allege discrimination and you insisting that I did, before it becomes mansplaining? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You said he was trying to "problematise your gender". How else can that be interpreted? Doc talk 03:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please just read discrimination. Personal abuse is not necessarily discrimination, and discrimination does not necessarily involve any personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that ordinarily, putting quotation marks around "she" would be a way to mark it as not signifying its apparent meaning, and could be interpreted to mean the writer did not believe the subject was actually female, or acting in ways culturally defined as female. However, this particular writer's punctuation usage is so idiosyncratic that it's hard to tell what was meant by it. For instance, in this 1000-word missive, the quotation marks used for "policy" and "discussion" seem to mean a policy that is not a policy and a discussion that is not a discussion. But the quotation marks in "walls of text" seem to be marking it as a direct quotation, while the reasons for using quotations for "(disambiguation)" and "us" are more obscure. I would be more concerned about this type of personalization, where various named editors--BrownHairedGirl, Dicklyon, and Arthur Rubin--are accused of "disruption", "bogging down RMs", "nitpickery", "wasting time" by not going to sources, and "bad faith". As usual, no diffs are presented, and there have been no requests for review of the RM or user conduct in the proper forums. —Neotarf (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, those are not 'frustration' quotes, those are 'there are no girls on the Internet' quotes. You can try to explain it away however you want, but that is saying "I don't believe your're really a woman" -there is no other way to take it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not how I see it at all. Doc talk 10:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that the use of scare quotes around "she" jumped out to me as well as questioning, at least, her lady-like behavior (a la Thatcher or Hillary Clinton). But as others have noted, it is hard sometimes to know what Skookum is intending with his writing style. It was clear that he was quite upset with BHG in that reply but his intent is not as clear. However, in an earlier comment in that same thread about another admin with whom Skookum seems to have also clashed with, User:Kwami, he doesn't use the scare quote when referring to him in comments like "And it was you who observed that we don't use Sarcee anymore vs. Tsuu Tina; that was indeed how those articles were.....until Kwami came along and turned the clock back forty years unilaterally, along with all the rest I mentioned (oh, including Heiltsuk-Bella Bella and Nuxalk-Bella Coola, too... and says he would have liked to move Kwakwaka'wakw to Kwakiutl and Nuu-chah-nulth to Nootka....).". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want an example of a wildly inappropriate gendered reference, scroll up to the "grow a pair" comment earlier in the thread. Apparently BHG and other users are now expected to obtain male gonads, and prove they are "masculine" by putting up with abuse. No wonder Wikipedia has only 8% (soon to be 7%) female editors, and is routinely criticized in the press for systemic bias.

This is also an example of what happens when a thread goes on for too long, the bullies start hanging around the playground, and teach each other how to be better bullies. —Neotarf (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Neotarf pointed out "us" in quotes in one of Skookum's posts. That's clearly intended to be scare quotes: Who counts as "us" when outsiders name Native Americans, tying into his accusations of racism against anyone who agrees which the opinions on TITLE he himself held a year ago but has since abandoned. I haven't seen any evidence that Skookum mistakenly uses quotes where he intends italics or other emphasis. The obvious conclusion is just what BHG believes: that he's implying that, while BHG claims to be a woman, he has his doubts, or maybe even that he rejects her claim to be a woman as some sort of plot against him. If that's too uncertain a point to act on, so be it, but demanding that BHG retract her objection is inappropriate. Better to have the occasional charge of sexism that people judge hasn't been proved than to forbid women from making charges that men won't accept. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Who the hell is going to "forbid women" from making charges against men? What has this thread become? This is totally stupid right now. Doc talk 10:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you did, above. You regard the evidence as inadequate, which is a conclusion I disagree with, but you are entitled to your judgement.

There are several ways you could follow through on that. You could ask Skookum1 to avoid writing which could be interpreted that way. You could conclude something like "not proven", or "not enough to act on".

But instead you have chosen to problematise only the complainant, and demand that I refrain from even raising a concern. The parallel situation in the non-virtual world would be that if a good faith complaint to authorities were judged not to require any further action, those authorities would give the complainant a hard time to deter further complaints.

The context of this is important too. I acted as an admin in closing some backlogged discussions in which Skookum1 had a stake, using my best judgement in applying policy to the closures. Editors may disagree with that judgement, which is why we have review processes which allow a closing admin's actions to be reviewed, and overturned if there is a consensus to do so. That allows the issue to be settled, so that everyone can move on.

AFAICR, the first closure of mine which Skookum1 objected to was my closure on 23 March of the Category:Squamish CFD. Skookum1 posted to my talk page about it, where I rejected the complaint and invited him to open a deletion review. If he had done so, the community could have settled the issue long ago.

Similarly with the RM closures to which he objects. Take for example my 12 April close of the Chipewyan people RM, which he is still complaining about in User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this. Move review is available for that too.

Instead, Skookum1 persistently refuses to use the community's review mechanisms. He has chosen instead to post numerous lengthy attacks on me in multiple forums, with a repeated barrage of allegations that I was not acting in good faith, that I abused policy etc. These attacks have continued for over a month, are still ongoing.

The message from Skookum1 is loud and clear: that if he dislikes a closure, he will not seek a review. Instead he will hurl insults and abuse until he gets the answers he wants. This is plain bullying.

And the response at ANI has so far been that the admin's response should be to simply accept being on the receiving end of this macho rage, and not even to object unless the evidence on any individual point is undisputable. Neotarf is right: no wonder there are so few female editors.

This isn't a new problem. See for example Sue Gardner's 2011 post Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• comment I understand why BHG feels the way she does and she's undoubtedly been the subject of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith lodged by Skookum on multiple occasions. However here we are reading way too much into editing style - if you look at the recent missive posted to his talk page he puts "he" in quotes, as well as many other words which aren't themselves problematized but rather emphasized. E.g you can read it like She told me to do that then he told me to say the other thing, even though the place we were talking about was... It can be seen as dismissive or nagging but I don't see it as a slur on BHGs gender. Anyway it's just his writing style, sometimes scare quotes are used for emphasis and sometimes they are used to problematize something - another respected editor who uses scare quotes in this way is Bearcat, who is "constantly" using such quotes to "emphasize" the "main" points. We here need to come up with a reasonable path to help Skookup adjust his behavior but picking on a stylistic issue like this isn't helping IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Instead of looking for paths to adjust behaviour, why not simply insist that he use the existing paths?
    If he disagrees with an admin's closure, seek a review or accept the decision ... but stop immediately with the barrage of personal attacks as a substitute for review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'm not convinced that Skookum was intending to use quotes in that instance as a gender-based attack. He's pretty much going all Springs1 (seriously, Google that name) on his talk page at the moment, and just seems intent on adding emphasis all over the place. I don't wonder if he intended to italicize "she" but ended up with quotes instead of double apostrophes. In any case, BHG is correct above. Skookum needs to step back and look for a review rather than continue down this path. I was trying to point him toward an RFC, but I am not confident of it happening. At this point, I am going to disengage and leave him be since there is nothing I productive I (or any of us) can do right now while he's off in such a rage. Either he will calm down on his own, or he will keep fighting and walk right into what I tried to ward him away from. Resolute
  13:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BHG, we can insist all we want, indeed many have so-insisted, but there hasn't been a change in behavior. I am not condoning Skookum's personal attacks here, on you, or on anyone, I'm just saying "she" is not the crime we should be going after a conviction for. Either this ends in another block for Skookum, or we find a way to modulate his behavior. I agree there are avenues like move review he could pursue but he has chosen not to. If an admin were to impose a block for personal attacks I don't think anyone would disagree, indeed such a block was recently placed, but did the behaviour change? Not yet it seems. We need to think out of the box, or consider it a lost cause.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I admire the efforts which you and Resolute and others have made to try to persuade him to take a more constructive approach. You follow on from others, such as those I noted in a collapsed box earlier in his thread. But as you say, insisting ain't working.

I accept (with regret) that there seems to be no consensus to act on the "she" comment. However, I don't see why there is a need to think outside the box.

Why not just place an indef block, stressing that indefinite does not mean infinite ... and make it explicit that the block will be lifted when he undertakes to a) use dispute resolution channels to address his grievances, and accept the outcome of those processes; b) restrict his comments in consensus-forming discussions to the matter in hand, concisely discussing content and policy rather than editors.

That means that if if he disagrees with a closure, use

WP:DRV

, and accept that even if he thinks the result of the review is flawed, the matter is closed. If he believes that an editor or admin has been behaving unfairly to him, then open an RFC/U and accept the outcome. It means that either he challenges them through the processes which provide a remedy, or he lets them go ... but that he will not be allowed to continue shouting his grievances endlessly in places where they cannot be resolved.

That would give him a clear statement of what is required, and a clear choice between editing in accordance with the 5 pillars, or not editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, things are heading that way, that's for sure...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

I am reporting the exchange between myself and User:QuackDoctor User talk:QuackDoctor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vanja_Bulić. I began in good faith, but instead of offering calm arguments for retention, he laid into me and immediately questioned my motives. When I advised him to stop, he laid into me with the whole deletionist troll routine, after which I will decline to interact with him in any other way, other than to replace the required ANI warning on his talk page. If he has arguments for retention, he should just make them and not question my motives or the motives of any other user. Safiel (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• To prevent any escalation, I will not continue the discussion on the deletion page. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite the contrary, the editor Safiel, who has evident deletionist practice, has questioned MY motives, by accusing me of having conflict of interest about the biography of a well known Serbian author and journalist (author of several bestselers, among other things), even accusing me of being Vanja Bulic. This is clearly ad hominem attack and not assuming any good faith. He also wants to remove page about a perfectly valid and well known person (that has page on Serbian wikipedia, has written screenplays for major Serbian movies, hosted over 2000 TV shows, was editor of a major news magazine etc) that a friend of mine created as a way to experience wikipedia editing. What he experienced is major abuse, and it is extremely annoying (obviously, Safiel is now extending his abuse to me). QuackDoctor (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I notice you have gone through and reverted unrelated deletion related edits by me, without giving any substantial reason for your edit. And none of this needed to have happen. If you had merely given your reason for retaining the article and not attacked me to begin with, there would be no argument. I would have had no problems. But you choose to go personal right away. Editors have a right to propose deletion and the articles are duly considered by the community. Had you been nice, I would have thoughtfully engaged you in discussion. Instead, you immediately went personal. Safiel (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why but I think I have seen this user before? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to see a brand new editor with 30 edits using language like "deletionist".

Ravensfire (talk

) 00:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture on the profile rings a bell as well as the type of name but cant put my finger on it, I know though that this was months ago at least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• QuackDoctor's first "argument" in the AFD lacks good faith and civility, outright calling the nominator "malicious" and ignorant. The rest is just icing on the cake. At AFD you make your policy-based argument for the outcome you feel is the correct one, and move on. If you don't understand that then you should not be participating at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to say who is participating or not? Your attitude is that of turning away new contributors (and the new contributor in question is the person who created the article, not me, who have anonimously contributed from time to time for many years; certainly, the attitude towards contributing editors who are new or anonimous has changed for the worse over time, and you try to bully people out of editing, defying all advantages that existed in this project in the first place (and are sadly ruining it, as potential new editors turn away in disgust, making diversification of editor base that is missing impossible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.252.43 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Except most new editors don't use the kind of remarks made by Quack here, FreeRange here used the words "If you don't understand" before making the last comment in which you cited which in this case is correct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not create the article, the person who did is new. You are turning him away (and bullying me too in the process). QuackDoctor (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay first I want to say how do you not see your own edits as being a "bully" to other editors? The person who created the article may be new but articles get deleted here on Wikipedia that are created by experienced editors as well, you cant and shouldn't take it personally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the article history. The very moment it was created, it was suggested for speedy deletion. I removed the notice, and told my friend to continue editing. He did so, and learned a few things about how to do it. Then it was proposed for deletion, and then had article for deletion page, despite the fact that the article was extended (now by me) to show more of the content. Yes, articles do get deleted, but people should give it more time and some google check since the effect is that you turn away potential contributors. If you assume that every new article is some hoax (despite the very numerous google pages with news sources, albeit in Serbian), you are damaging the project. This is the real issue here, since many people get scared away in this way and never come back to edit. If my reaction was strong, it was justified. It should make people here reassess this attitude, which is not doing any good, and this is a problem that has been discussed at length here [29]. I had opportunity to see it happen with this article and a friend of mine, but I am sure it happens all the time. People who I reacted to are not going to leave the project. People like my friend, on the other hand, are not going to stay if this is how they are "welcomed". There used to be some policy about treating newcomers in the distant past but it seems it is long gone. QuackDoctor (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You do have a point, no welcome message was placed on your talkpage, the welcome message helps explain how to use Wikipedia and explains the policies. There is no justification however for being nasty towards uninvolved editors a better thing you could have done is ask for help from an editor. I want to say too that in the future try using the

WP:REQUEST). Before you hit submit or save you can always text a new article and see what others think about it before saving it onto Wikipedia to be seen by everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk

) 01:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:BITE guideline which suggests to treat newcomers carefully so as not to drive them away. -- Atama頭

02:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• More of the same: Proposal is biased, from a devoted deletionist that damages wikipedia, removes valid articles about subcultures that he knows not a thing, is possibly racist and deserves some scrutiny! diff and The flag is symbol of the new republic, and it is well known. The deletionist and Ukraine breakup denialist just attempts to change history, but it will not work diff. Looks like the Doctor is here to "tell it like it is". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"It is very hostile to try to delete the article the very moment it was created. The person who created the article (as a way to come to wikipedia, and at MY invitation) was disgusted by this, and told me "I don't want to do this, this is not worth my time". That is the kind of environment you are presenting to new users. I am simply reacting to that" (Copied content from one of the AfD discussions).

@User:QuackDoctor I answered your concern above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment regarding the tag for speedy deletion. I was there when it happened, and reverted the removal of CSD tag, I then looked at the artilce and saw it was tagged immediately tagged and talked to

Comment On the basis of several good faith keep rationales by other users, I have withdrawn and closed the AfD. Had the other party behaved civilly towards me in the first place and given a good faith reasoned defense of the article, rather than attacking me, I would very likely have withdrawn the AfD then. I suggest the other party take a lesson that civility and good faith will get you a lot more cooperation of Wikipedia, than will failing to assume good faith and conducting attacks. Safiel (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the evidence [30] shows the opposite. In fact, out of his last 1000 edits, that almost exclusively consist of proposals for deletion of pages not a single proposal for deletion of an article that he suggested, Safiel closed in this way - a pretty impressive track record. A typical situation, that shows how this deletionist behaved is this [31]: Clear keep concensus (without even a single vote for deletion of Ernest Hill article), similar arguments like here (google in fact shows notability etc), but did Safiel speedy close the proposal? No, it was there for a week, until someone else closed it. The only speedy thing he did was speedy delete - A LOT. Seems like the outrage generated (by spooking deletionism turning away people) made him reconsider his ways, at least in this case it worked within a day. In any case,

WP:BITE QuackDoctor (talk

) 22:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That is completely wrong, the user has 9,332 edits to the mainspace or about 53.24% of his edits to Wikipedia compared to 1,086 to the Wikipedia space or 6.20% of his edits (he has more edits to the both of the Talk spaces at 3,299 and 3,188 respectively. You seriously need to stop attacking other editors with baseless claims. I would suggest an admin close this immediately before it gets any worse.

buzz

03:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@

alphabet soup and Wikipedia jargon for an editor of less than a week's standing. Perhaps they're just a quick study, but if the aggressive editing continues, the sock angle will surely be investigated. Bishonen | talk

17:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Just to say something here,

policies of Wikipedia

. You don't need to be logged in or welcomed to know those pages are there.

Also, it says right on the top of Special:NewPages that pages shouldn't be tagged for CSD A1 or A3 immediately after creation. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)