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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the contrary, there was there a lack of WP:TPG in the statement they must have got an edit-conflict (no, they most likely did not). In addition, the summary given [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)[reply]

Comment from BHG

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 Bold, revert, discuss, the Skookum1 version seems to be bold, revert, diatribe. In more discussions than I can count, editors who disagree with him have been denounced at length, often to the detriment of the discussion; countless editors have been accused by him of personal vendettas, and of failing to respect his expertise. I first encountered Skookum1 when I closed a CFD which had been open for over a month. Not hard to see why was unclosed: Skookum1's comments were far too long to read in any reasonable length of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem, Carrite, is that while everyone else forgave, forgot, and moved along, Skookum1 did not, and that is the reason this thread was opened. Being a "productive content contributor" does not excuse unprovoked and vehement personal attacks, it does not permit tossing around accusation of bad faith, and it does not allow someone to tell people to "get their nose out" of areas that person edits in. We can address the fact that Skookum1 has done all of these things (repeatedly, over and over) now, and hopefully retain him as a contributor, or we can close this and just come back to it in a week, month, or year, with another even stronger outburst of drama and the likely loss of the contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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 accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and that policy is that such comments are "never acceptable". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Month Block Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

This sort of disruption has been seen in countless other discussions. See for example this RM, and this CFD, where the substantive discussion was drowned out in extraordinarily verbose outpourings of rage. All of this runs counter to WP:TPG, and impedes consensus-formation.

Skookum1 has repeatedly been pointed to appropriate ways of addressing his grievances. Don't like a CFD closure? Take it to DRV. Don't like an RM closure? Take it to WP:MR. But instead of using the established channels to review these issues, he rants about them in other discussions, so nothing ever gets resolved.

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

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

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

• Skookum1, you have a long set of complaints about a number of editors, of whom I am one. You make serious allegations against many of them, alleging all sorts of misconduct. The curious thing is that in most cases, it seems to be only you who complains of persecution by them. As I noted above, several uninvolved editors have suggested that you step back and consider why it is that you alone find all these alleged miscreants on your case, and consider what you can do differently to change the situation. So far, I don't see any sign of you doing that.
  You have a few choices in how you can deal with this.
  One option is to continue to post about all your grievances in every forum available to you: ANI, user talk pages, Jimbo's talk, XFDs, RMs, your own talk. That takes up a lot of your time, and maybe it is satisfying to you to air your grievances, but it doesn't change anything. So you remain frustrated, and you also frustrate other editors who want to discuss only the matter in hand. When they complain, you then add them to the list of editors out to get you.
  Another option is for you to use established processes to review decisions which you don't like. WP:MR exists to review whether move requests were closed correctly, and WP:DELREV has the same role for CFD. If you list closures at those reviews, you can explain exactly why you consider the closes to be flawed, and you concerns will be assessed by uninvolved editors. Those reviews are not (as you wrongly claim) about wikiquette; they are about whether the discussion was closed correctly. However, you have apparently written off the review process without even trying it.
  You could open an RFC/U about any editor (including an admin) whose conduct you find problematic. There you will plenty of other editors ready to review your concerns. But instead you denounce process and say that you "just wanted to be left alone to work on articles".
  Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Editors discuss content and processes, review and critique each others contributions, and use established processes to resolve issues where they can't agree. Why do you expect to contribute to a collaborative environment and be "left alone"? Solitary writing is a fine thing, but it's not how wp works.
  Wikipedia is not a battleground. To avoid it turning into a battleground, there are a wide range of dispute resolution processes. You choose to neither use those processes, nor to let go and move on from the things which you feel have been unfair. Instead you bring every conflict with you wherever you go, such as denouncing RM closes in a CFD discussion. (That neither helps the CFD make a good decision, nor changes the RM outcome, nor reduces stress on you). That's your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack..... And this, right here, summarises the problem with Skookum1's behavior in a nutshell: the suggestion that an editor consider mentoring to better work within Wikipedia's process being considered equivilant to suggesting an editor is mentally deficient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Solution

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

Obviously Skookum1 cannot continue the not concise personalized comments long term. See WP:First Law. Given that they're a 9 year, 50K / 60% mainspace editor [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 -- WP:INVOLVED is wikilawyerishly admin action after editorial engagement -- it violates the spirit of strict separation between an individual's admin and editorial roles. Call it WP:DEVLOVNI -- backwards involved. It's important to the gestalt of pedia that authority been seen as impersonal.

So how about a two parter:

• BHG will ignore Skookum1's category activities. (Given 857 admins and 116,100 users, surely it can fall upon someone else to Cfd categories if they're not quite right?)
• Skookum1 agrees to keep their Wikipedia: space posts less than 2000 characters and stop the personalization of disputes. NE Ent 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fear that this is setting off on a path where Skookum1 seeks restraints on other editors rather than learning to work collaboratively and follow WP:TPG. That's just pushing the problem down the road, and impeding the normal scrutiny which editors apply to each others work. Skkoum1's repeated demand to "leave me alone" just isn't viable in a collaborative environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @NE Ent: I'm not going to bother commenting more here today, it's the usual one sided rants and (as with Neotarf below) cherrypicked examples, all with AGF as their theme, but I would like to point out I just ran a word count on BHG's post immediately above - 450 words=2,623 characters - while her very editorialized and misrepresentative "hostile close" at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 is 537 words=3,249 characters - longer than some CfD/RM posts she pronounced TLDR as an excuse not to read them (when it was pointed out she shouldn't be using TLDR on discussion boards, she went and dug out a "behavioural guideline"). And what is going on at the CFD is not "normal scrutiny", it is groundless and not normal, but as noted COI/AGF in origin and targeted; disavowals of that are made, but the refusal to acknowledge evidence provided (or in the inability to read/digest it) is what it is. The claim by Neotarf below that my problem is with "every person" [I interact with] is just more typical conflation and misrepresentation and attack-mode "IDONTLIKESKOOKUM1", and the rants here and in other threads about numbers of characters per post overloading wikipedia's servers are ironic; it's fruitless and venal and often mean discussions here and elsewhere that are taking up far more space.....and I know from the BCGNIS template dispute long ago that Jimbo and the MWF told the code-writers to write as if t hey had unlimited space.....so what's the big deal about actual text, or is code more important than words and meanings. You want shorter posts from me? Well, if people weren't stonewalling and tossing NPA/AGF grenades in my path, that would help a lot. I also of course support an interaction ban, and feel it should Bushranger as his own behaviour is demonstrably hostile and his own use of "walls of text" while complaining about mine in the Squamish CfD where he used TLDR as a BLUDGEON, while citing BLUDGEON, is every bit as hypocritical and AGF and destructive and became the focus of BHG's invocation of TLDR to reject that CfD (even though TLDR is not to be used in discussions (it's about articles) without condescending to examine the evidence provided, or acknowledge support votes either.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1, that's classic straw man stuff. I have never cited TLDR against any of your posts. I have repeatedly pointed you towards the behavioural guideline WP:TPYES, which says "be concise". Have you even read WP:TPYES? The problem is not server overload; the problem is editor overload, when discussions are filled with off-topic rambles.

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

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

I do not support any interaction ban, as one is not necessary. What is necessary is that Skookum1 accept that his behavior has not been within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, instead of continuing to insist it's everyone else's fault, agree to stop trying to accuse others of the behavior he engages in, accept that people disagreeing with him is not attacking him, and agree to engage other editors in a civil and constructive manner even when they disagree with him. I would like to poit out that I have not provided "walls of text" as claimed by Skookum1, nor have I been "demonstratably hostile": I request that Skookum1 provide diffs to support these claims or cease making them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

To User:NE Ent, this AN/I was not initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl; it was initiated by User:The Bushranger. I initiated the previous AN/I of Skookum1. While problems have arisen from categories, they also include personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. These collective actions create a toxic environment and disrupt dialogue, which have rendered consensus-building discussions all but impossible, e.g. 1, 2, [11], [12], etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

@NE Ent: As Uyvsdi points out, I raised this - not because of verbosity (indeed, in the current CfD there was marked improvement from the concerns that had arisen for me in the previous one that's relevant), but because of the personal attacks, particularly the blistering ones unleashed when a caution that a trip down NPA Road was being taken was delivered. Regardless of categories, the personal attacks, inability to accept dissenting viewpoints, and assumptions of bad faith to the point of reading attacks that aren't even there into statements (i.e. the repeated vehement insistience that I raised this ANI to get him banned) are the problem here. 150K of discussion on a single topic can be productive - but it has to be made in a productive fashion, and that is where the problem is here. Neither of us want to lose a productive contributor: quite the opposite. But a productive contributor must be willing to contribute collegially, or at the very least to be willing to accept dissenting viewpoints and remain calm and even enjoyable to discuss content with, even when opposite sides of the issue, as long as the bear doesn't get poked; Skookum1 has shown little sign of being willing to do so, no bear-poking required. All that's needed here is for a simple, good-faith statement that an attempt will be made to keep discussions, regardless of length, on the content and not the contributor or the contributor's motive in the discussion, and the drama will be over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Another personal attack from Skookum1

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

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

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

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

Unpicking Skookum1's comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Doncram: I have always understood WP:BRD to be quite fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Any edit is open to challenge, and it is then discussed. That's a crucial part of the whole collaborative process by which content is scrutinised

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

@Doncram: You are entitled to your view of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD as "horrible policy". If you want to rewrite or delete 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)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. I did not attack. I made a !vote in the CfD, speaking civilly, and that only got a questioning response - it was when I cautioned Skookum1 that he was over the personal-attack line in his 'discussions' with BHG that I got blistered. If I'm "following" him it's because he continued attacking me at the CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

A suggestion

Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm sorry, but I'm all in favour of de-escalation, but this bullshit idea that the above thread is somehow "bullying" or "ganging up on" has to be nipped in the bud. The intent of ANI is to provide a forum (from Latin meaning "gathering place". In complex cases, multiple involved and uninvolved users discuss the situation to come up with a method of resolution. Hundreds of editors have this page watched, and ALL are permitted to comment based on their findings. As is often the case of extremely problematic users, the quantity of discussion is huge. As is often the case when the editor complained about plays WP:IDHT, the rhetoric gets ratcheted up a few notches. That is what Skookum needs to learn and understand - a broad swath of the community finds him to be pesky. The sheer quantity (or "gang") should tell Skookum just how many people he's pissed off. Look, if someone runs for town council election, and they get 1 vote, and 10,000 votes against them ... those 10,000 didn't "gang up" on them! Those 10,000 are independent voices - just like in ANI the panda ₯’ 08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Nice try, but beware of 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)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: First I would like to thank you for 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Um...why, exactly, are we using inflammatory and loaded words like "crimilizing" and comparing this to a criminal trial? The facts here are simple. Skookum1 has a well-established pattern of vehemently attacking editors who disagree with his positions, making clear and unambiguous personal attacks (calling them bigoted, stating they are mentally deficient, and etc. etc.). He also utterly refuses to accept that his behavior is unacceptable. This is not bullying, it is enforcing policy, and unless we want to send the message (yet again) that if you're a "content contributor" than even the Five Pillars don't apply to you, we need to do somthing about it, even if it's a sternly-worded last and final warning (which was, in fact, the original point of this ANI filing). And we absolutley need to avoid sending the message that an editor can get out of being sanctioned for flaunting policy by claiming that they're being "bullied". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Carrite It`s OK, I have no friends on wiki, I'm always giving points that no one agrees with. I'm used to being alone and respectfully told that I am not agreed with. Continuing on then: This user has been warned/blocked numerous times, he has been givin his chance and has not taken it (he is still committing Personal attacks), showing some sort of possible WP:NOTHERE intent, I recommend blocking. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• It appears that many of the participants here want to see User:Skookum1 punished for “crimes” he allegedly committed on Wikipedia. I have to admit I am not familiar with every last detail of this saga (is anyone?), but I urge you all to read 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• The use of loaded words does not help the discussion here. While it's absolutely true that Skookum1's content contributions are stellar, it's also true that he refuses to follow WP:CIVIL - not just a policy, but one of the Five Pillars - and makes increasingly vehement 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  IHTS, please stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks, please stop entirely making up things other editors did not say in order to attack them, and please also read WP:HOUNDING. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  RFC/U is indeed thataway (and points for copying my writing style, another indication of your following my contributions for the purpose of attacking), but as this was (regardless of what you choose to believe) intended as a simple request for one uninvolved admin to issue a warning for one set of personal attacks before it snowballed out of control (mostly due to Skookum1's actions), it was not needed, and indeed I deliberately chose to avoid initiating an RFC/U out of respect for Skookum1 as I knew he would feel attacked if I did so. As for "writing things...not able to back up": "You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent"." Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to contained no crystal-balling and no mentioning of or reference to 'intent' [18]. From the last discussion, "Now you give excuses that you were busy or something...I'm not buying your "I was busy"". Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to did not even imply being "busy" as any reason for the delay in responding to you there [19]. Both of these are examples of your entirely making things up out of whole cloth in order to attack me: I do not know if there are more, because I am not following your pages or contribution history. Now as you cannot back up your accusations of "uncivil...false and hypocritical" behavior on my part, instead only making manufactured accusations and vague waves without diffs, I request, again, that you stop hounding my contributions in order to make unsubstantiated personal attacks upon me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Request for sanctions on Ihardlythinkso

I have attempted to adopt a water-off-a-duck's-back policy regarding the continued personal attacks and hounding in this discussion by Ihardlythinkso, however his most recent comment indicates that he is determined to continue to manufacture accusations that have zero basis in truth, personally attack me, and hound me (as evidenced by both his appearing here at ANI, and only in this one section of ANI, to attack me, and more notably his use of "RfC/U is →thataway" which is mocking my closing style of discussions here, something that indicates a search of my contribution history). At least three times now Ihardlythinkso has invented a charge against me, two of them involving words attributed to me that I did not say or imply: the "busyness" claim from the previous discussion regarding IHTS (His manufactured charge, what I actually said), claiming that I was "crystal-balling 'intent'" somehow (his claim, having no basis in what I actually said), and most recently "my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me", which even if you don't count his first comment in this thread as "addressing [me]", this is (and was in reply to my reply to Ottawahitech, not IHTS). His personal attacks against me in this thread are clear ([25], [26], [27]) note that especially when he claims "Unlike you, I don't write things I'm not able to back up", and in return I responded with clear diffs and a request not to make further accusations without diffs, his response is further personal attacks without diffs.

I have disengaged from IHTS following the previous discussion, however IHTS refuses to disengage from me - and, in fact, claims that I am not disengaging from him - refuses to cease making personal attacks, without any evidence, to the point of making up things I did not say or do, and claiming that I do not substantiate my claims after I clearly have, and evidences hounding behavior while leaving edit-summaries, here at ANI of his comments aimed at me, of "creepy" and "putrid". And, after my request above for his latest baseless personal attack to be stricken, he responds by posting this at NE Ent's talk page (which, if he hadn't wikilinked my username and thus triggered the ping function, I would have been unaware of). I request that IHTS be sanctioned for this behavior, as it's obvious that he has no intention of stopping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Continuing the "water off a duck's back" approach would have served you well, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@The Bushranger: You have not convinced me (and possibly others) that a User:Skookum1 witch-hunt on wp:ANI was necessary. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Per WP:ADMINACCT I am quite happy for any closure I have made to be reviewed, and I will accept the outcome. But no admin should be subjected to an ongoing barrage because an editor refuses to use the review processes.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:MR/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)[reply]

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

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[29] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [30], reverts user Galassi [31], reverts Galassi again [32], reverts Izak [33], reverts Soman [34], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [35], reverts Galassi [36], reverts me [37]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[38] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[39] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[40] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[41] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[42]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the article's revision history, it looks at though the difficult POV-pusher is Smeat75 (though he/she is not alone).

This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[43] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!

After Galassi reinserted it, Iryna Harpy reverted it again, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Galassi (talk): Rv Not only are the refs contentious, but have turned the lead into a non-lead WP:POV travesty. See talk page."

Maybe Smeat75 should be given a topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see a tendency by a tag-team of Direktor and Producer to insinuate that Communism is a Jewish invention. Both of them refuse to seek consensus, and cherrypick quotes to push a POV, disregarding the errors in citations which would normally disqualify these citations as RS.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi disagrees? Well, Galassi, seeing as how you're the resident edit-warring proxy for Smeat75, with virtually no involvement on the talkpage, pardon me if I don't collapse out of shock.

Galassi's involvement on the article cann be summed up entirely as "revert Director whenever you see him editing". -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Toddy1 above - that was cited to a RS that said Karl Marx was a baptized Lutheran and I am far from the only one saying that on the talk page. I kept saying that sentence about Marx should not be in the lead because it was not discussed in the article, against WP:LEAD. Anyway that doesn't matter as Pharos did a lot of work and expanded the Marx information to a neutral and accurate version which I would certainly not have quarreled with, moved it out of the lead and into the body of the article and Director reverted every word, that is why I am here.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75, you have conveniently omitted the fact that you'd blanked other RS and overwritten it with as simplistic statement regarding Marx's Lutheran baptism, plus added that he was a 'classic antisemite' based on a single source all compressed into a single sentence. The source for the 'antisemite' allegation was WP:CHERRY based on this Professor of law's credibility having been established within the scope of the area of law, whereas the RS you selected was essentially a personal opinion piece by him which has been widely criticised.

I am in agreement with Toddy1's evaluation. You seem incapable of being able to approach the subject matter in a rational manner, and have demonstrated no interest in even attempting to. You persist in pointing your finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you as being part of a conspiracy of some sort or another, even where there has been no working relationship between contributors prior the recent outbreak of disparate interest groups/POV pushers. I am of the serious opinion that you should be topic banned. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 has no regard whatsoever for discussion or consensus, he just thinks those who revert his content blanking should be banned from annoying him. I mean, if he posts enough sections on ANI demanding his opponents be removed from his presence, someone's bound to sanction them, right? I imagine after this, it'll be the turn of Pluto2012, Iryna Harpy, Producer, and all the rest who are opposed to his (frankly nonsensical) edits. Really though, this is basically Smeat75 "dealing" with his inability to push his edits into the article. Neither discussion nor edit-warring helped, how about another "Ban Director!" section? -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[44]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that was removed was introduced without consensus, amid active opposition on the talkpage. The posting editor didn't seem to read the discussion and/or didn't care that elaborating on that topic is opposed on grounds of being miles outside the scope.

I'm sure Pharos was merely doing what he thought was best for resolving the matter, i.e. "resolve the issue by elaborating on it in enough detail". Unfortunately, elaborating on the issue in detail takes us outside the scope. The best thing to do is to leave it out. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for an admin- I got an edit conflict which I tried to fix and think I inadvertently removed a couple of other comments. I don't know how to try to fix that without possibly messing things up more, can someone look into that. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Further comment: This edit summary [45] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have to state that the irony of Smeat75's ANI title is too much to keep a straight face over. Given the recent ANI-turned-fiasco over this same article where he declared, "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me..., his/her purported interest in 'improving' the article smacks of disingenuousness. My involvement in the article has been limited to keeping an eye out for POV pushes, and I believe I've clearly stated my position more than once as to Smeat75's interest as a WP:COI desire to redact the article into oblivion[46]. The nature of changes to the lead alone were pure POV turning the article into a parody of an encyclopaedic entry per my responses on the talk page [47].

JoeSperrazza, while I can appreciate that you are a neutral editor, I think you may see my concern with envisaging a reasonable, rational RfC if you take a look at the very, very recent ANI, and at the article's corresponding talk page. An RfC can only be viable where those seeking consensus are genuinely interested in developing a good and informative article are the mainstay of such an RfC. Holding an RfC at this point in time will only encourage yet more protracted, convoluted and plain disruptive tracts of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by interest groups antithetical to the existence of the article intent on wearing down good faith contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on that. Smeat consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [48] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I promote extremist "memes" and push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". [49][50] He criticizes others for their wording of sourced information yet his only alternative to throw it straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". [51] Smeat clearly lacks the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and continues to try to associate other users with malicious statements or views in an effort to portray them as anti-semites and get his way. He even employs legal rhetoric and claims that he's stopping users from pushing "libel". [52] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well it was due to me trying to fix something that had happened due to an edit conflict and if I had been trying to do something malicious I don't think I would come back to the page and leave a note to say I accidentally removed some comments, can someone look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I did look at it and decided that I did not trust myself not to mess things up even more if I tried to change it back, which is why I left a note asking an admin to look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with Smeat75. If you look at the article's history page, it's hard not to see the systematic censorship by Director. One example is the section titled "Critical reception and conspiracy theories" discussing analysts of antisemitic conspiracy theories related to the concept of 'Jews and Communism'. Director unjustifiably deleted links and] information from that section, most specifically Template:Antisemitism which he deleted multiple times here, here, and here, claiming the article has to be "part of a series on antisemitism" in order to be included, which every experienced editor (an he's one) knows is wrong, and I have even explained that the article is clearly related to the subject and it's exactly the right place for its use. Yambaram (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Director just continues repeatedly reverting others' contributions (not by me, I have had more than I can stand at that article for a while) with edit summaries such as "opposed to this" - reverts sourced material by Soman - [53] by Soman again - [54] and again [55] - reverts Pharos [56] and pays no attention to any discussion on the talk page (not from me there either in the last few days).Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reverts another user today [57] with an edit summary "Rv. This recent addition ... is opposed." - translation, Director does not approve of it. "Discuss your edit on talk please." - there would not be any point in doing that, if Director answered at all, he would only say it was not going to be allowed. Why is he permitted to control the content of the article in this way?Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat I'm sympathetic to some of your concerns regarding this article. However, this seems to be a content dispute. Also it appears to me that the very existence of this article bothers you. I understand that too, but apparently that has also been dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't see any admin action helping the conditions over there, although if the edit warring continues I would consider locking the article so they can either discuss it or do nothing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, as in a lot of situations, the article simply needs more eyes focused on it. I have to say that I was surprised the article exists, and after reading it I am even more surprised. It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. But I just simply am not seeing a user conduct issue here, as far as I can see. Perhaps I've missed it. No, to me there is a deeper problem, which is that one has an article at all of this kind. I thought the top illustration was especially repugnant. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged the article for neutrality, as I feel that is the principal problem with the article. Let's see what happens now. I have never edited this article before, so I don't know what the dynamics are. I do know that there is a clear neutrality issue that has not been very clearly articulated. If there are indeed user conduct issues, perhaps they will now emerge. If not, they won't.Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I will not plead ignorance to why there are contributors who are overly sensitised to the the subject matter of the topic, Coretheapple, I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists... ... It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute." (sic) There is certainly no lack of research to suggest that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only arguments against its existence I've found (including attempts to delete it over the years) are based on perception of communism as being evil, plus censorship based on such articles touching on ticklish topics.

Examining different groups, including the identification of high profile names and brilliant minds behind communism as political/economic/philosophical theory, as being people of Jewish descent (who are still the principal thinkers with whom contemporary, active political parties who have never broken their ties) is less spurious than a ponderous number of Wikipedia articles. If there is any semblance of 'disrepute' in question, I would suggest that it is English Wikipedia's predominant bent towards 'Capitalism → (Representative) Democracy → Not corrupt → Great human rights record → Good vs Communism → Totalitarianism → Corruption → Bad human rights record → Evil' that stands accused of being irrational. Following this line of perception leads to equally badly thought out and emotive reactions as seeing this article as being about 'commies' of Jewish descent → anti-Semitism. What brings Wikipedia into disrepute is knee-jerk reaction self-censorship. Working of the assumption that the article in question is, according to preconceived misinformation and misconceptions about political theory, ipso facto anti-Semitic doesn't even aspire to have anything to do with rational thinking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by referring to "attempts to delete it over the years." The article was created 27 February 2014, which was two months ago. The rationale for deletion is not that we are sensitive to offending the Jews, but that no reliable sources write about the subject, which is required to meet notablity guidelines. Anti-semites of course write about the subject in fringe literature, that has been mention in reliable sources. and accordingly we have an article Jewish Bolshevism that describes that particular conspiracy theory. Incidentally, anti-semites also connect Jews with capitalism, particularly money-lending and liberalism, so your association does not work. Wikipedia did manage to delete "Jews and money." TFD (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I've only just noticed this response you've left for me. Firstly, you'll have to forgive my typo. It should have read as 'over the year'. Secondly, I would suggest that you read my comment with care. Using a leap of faith argument, you seem to have twisted my appraisal of the English speaking Western world's predominantly anti-communist conceptions drummed into us from the moment we comprehend media coverage of politics (and heavily reflected in numerous articles on the subject of politics, economics, interpretations of world events here on Wikipedia by which media sources are deemed reliable on the reliable sources list) into a spurious attempt to tar me with the anti-Semite brush. Your 'incidentally' remark is the association with my point that doesn't work. I sincerely hope that isn't what you were implying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists.." Sure, here's what I'm trying to express: I'm surprised the article exists. It is grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's developments - There is a statement in the lead "The philosopher Karl Marx, regarded as the "father of Communism", was Jewish by ancestry, hailing from prominent and historic rabbinic families on both sides." Exactly a week ago user Pharos expanded the main text with more information on his background and a book he wrote about Jews. Director took it out, you can see the squabble we had about it on the talk page. That is the exact reason I opened this discussion at AN/I. Today Pharos reinstated it with an edit summary " re-add Marx subsection opposed by exactly one person - now with strong reference linking On the Jewish Question to Communism" [58], DIRECTOR reverted it with an edit summary "Rolled back non-consensus addition" [59], I put it back with an edit summary "Discuss on talk page!" [60], he immediately took it out again with an edit summary "I did discuss and do discuss. Until there is consensus for this addition I will revert it without fail."[61]. By "consensus" he means "when he approves", which will be never. As Pharos said in the first edit summary, exactly one person, (Director), opposed it a week ago and the same person vetoes it now. It makes me want to edit war and attack the page, yes, it does, it makes me very angry, I have to try to restrain myself, I just do not know how people can read what is going on over at that article and do nothing about it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smeat75 that there are user conduct issues. I said otherwise above but after experiencing the talk page for a couple of days I've changed my mind. But let's be realistic: these user conduct issues are not going to be addressed. The fundamental problem with this article is content. There was an AfD in which a majority of editors favored deletion, which indicates, if nothing else does, that this article has a serious existential issue. Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article have existential issues, Coretheapple?

The outcome of the AfD, as you would well know, is dependent on policy and guideline based arguments, not the number of votes based on objections of an emotive, POV nature. Those who would like to see the article developed in an genuinely encyclopaedic manner are not those who are ensuring that the content is a travesty. Take, for example, Smeat75's recent 'contribution'[62] where, out of the blue, he introduced that Marx was a classic anti-Semite as a neutral(!!!???) version for the lead. If you understand it to be "... grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace." in its current form, I suggest that you go over the history with care and acquaint yourself with which contributors are responsible for it turning into a 'disgrace' before jumping in and tarnishing the reputation of contributors who were not responsible for the aberration that's emerged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Even a casual reader can see that this article has massive POV issues. Smeat75 is a bit overemotional but he is working very hard to fix its enormous and I think self-evident problems. You seem to view the problems as assets and the efforts to correct them as problems.Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Iryna Harpy - That was an exact quote from Alan Dershowitz, an expert on anti-Semitism. I wouldn't say it was "out of the blue". I should not have put "neutral" in the edit summary, I admit. It was during an edit war that has started up again over that sentence on Marx that Director bans being expanded upon. Coretheapple restored the information added by Pharos since my last post here, Director took it out, I just put it back, no doubt he will remove it again. That change you are referring to from me lasted about two minutes and almost nothing I have put in or taken out of that article has been allowed to remain so you cannot blame me for turning the article into a "disgrace".Smeat75 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is almost as much of a shambles as the article. A perfect example is that Smeat75 was just accused of canvassing in this very discussion! Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence of canvassing here by that editor or anyone. Clearly the article requires outside attention and lots of it, no matter how that might discomfit the editors that have been dominating discussions there and enforcing their will on the text. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to ask an admin about that. Was opening this AN/I really canvassing? Would informing WP Projects about the article be canvassing? Also I have just been accused of making personal attacks - [63]. There are two editors with very similar user names DIREKTOR and PRODUCER and they back each other up often in edits and on the talk page. If you refer to them in the same sentence they will accuse you of implying they are the same person and threaten you with being reported so when I refer to them together I make it clear that I accept they are two totally different editors and then I am told that I am making personal attacks and being sarcastic.[64][65]--Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was asking a rhetorical question when I said "Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence..." No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. You may want to keep a private record, off wiki, of the various conduct issues that have taken place on that page that amount to WP:OWN, such as false accusations of "personal attacks" for raising content issues and the "formal warnings" that I see emanating from one of the regulars there. One of these days you might need to quote those diffs. Hopefully this article will be put out of its misery long before then.-- Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. - that seems clear. I suppose some of them must have read this thread, but not a one says a word, makes any comment or offers any guidance. They are all waiting for it to just go away I suppose. The talk page of the article is awash with threats of "I'll report you the next time!" "you should be reported" etc over and over, as if such threats of being taken to this board are somehow terrifying, in reality all that happens is that comments sit here until someone closes the thread as "no consensus".Smeat75 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of appeals for "help" to targeted like minded users are flat out canvassing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who looks at that discussion will see that in the next message I posted there [66] I said "once again I ask you, or Jimbo, or anyone who sees this, to try to help us.Smeat75 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At that discussion I first said "I hope there will be lots of editors... who see this, go on to look at the article, and decide to help to improve it, or change the title, or delete it, or whatever, but it definitely needs participation from a wide part of the community" [67] and then that specific person expressed his view so I said "come and help us then". I don't call that targeted, or canvassing.If I am wrong maybe an admin will tell me so.Smeat75 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that I had previously left a message on the talk page of a user who in that same discussion had expressed a strong opinion that the article should not be deleted but the title might be changed, which is a different opinion to mine, asking that he would look at the article and "make suggestions for what should be done" on the article talk page.[68]. I just think the article would benefit from more eyes on it, whether they agree with me or not.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I asked at the NPOV noticeboard if others could look at the article and see what they thought of it, when an editor expressed an opinion I said "come and help us then" there too - [69] If that is some dreadful infraction perhaps an admin will let me know.Smeat75 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not to forget flouting the article's talk page (per WP:TALKNEW) by creating an unacceptable section[70] entitled "Attention new editors to this article and talk page" featuring an equally inappropriate call to arms diatribe as the purpose of the section. You're welcome to keep trying to justify the trail of 'just asking' around you've engaged in but, as has already been noted several times in responses to that section in a variety of contexts, if the number of forums and tone used doesn't add up to blatant canvassing, it most certainly adds up to gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What form of mediation would you suggest, Howunusual? The point is that there is nothing to mediate. Smeat75 started an ANI naming another contributor as being the source of the problem with an article that Smeat himself has POV issues with. Smeat's problem with the article is that Smeat is of the opinion that the article shouldn't exist. He has now found himself bogged down in defending himself against his WP:COI involvement, to which he has added violating WP:CANVASS in order to attract as many like-minded Wikipedians as possible, dragging the content of the article down even further than the lower depths it had been degraded to as a result of being turned into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

There is no question of mediating between this, that or the other party involved. This should have been an ANI looking into Smeat's activities, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iryna, you, like everyone else you are entitled to your own personal POV, but please do not project that onto the rest of the universe you do not like, and hence kindly avoid the melodrama and violation of WP:SPIDERMAN. The ones who instigated this edit war and have run it all along are Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and they have recently faced a block for that, albeit a short one, but well-deserved. So cut the drama and if you wish to edit the article in a calm WP:NPOV manner please do so, otherwise your emotionalism borders on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and fomenting the very WP:BATTLEGROUND you accuse other hard-working editors of doing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales discussion and blocks & warnings for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER

NOTE: See the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#"Jews and Communism" article that drew attention to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who were both blocked, questioned, warned, and unblocked over their tactics at the Jews and Communism article. See User talk:DIREKTOR#Blocked indefinitely, User talk:PRODUCER#Sock puppetry or other close relationship and the admin who did it User talk:Jehochman#User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, people using Jimbo's user talk page because they can't get what they want through normal channels, and an admin running in and blocking one side on completely false grounds. This thing is rapidly approaching ArbCom territory. When will people learn that running to Jimbo serves no purpose but to increase drama? Fram (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram, and feel free to join the debate, even better, please try doing something productive like improving or editing the Jews and Communism article, it sure needs help, I assure you your POV over there would be most welcome. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I don't need the abuse and complaints that invariably follow such articles. The previous discussion about this article that I tried to have with you here (or at AN) recently was more than enough to give me a flavour of the actions there. The frivolous blocks by Jehochman, based on some discussion at Jimbo Waleses, and seemingly unconcerned by discussions at general noticeboards and the like, have only reinforced my extreme reluctance to join the debate. But thanks for the invitation nonetheless. Fram (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I understand you fully, but not all of us can just sit some things out. Methinks though that if someone were writing about anyone's own ethnicity or coreligionists and their associations with a controversial political ideology they too would not have the luxury of sitting it out, at least I think so. Nevertheless your concern is appreciated. You know, I never voted to delete this article. My request was and is very simple, no denial, face the truth but put it in historical context for example perhaps merge it with History of Communism so that it makes sense, not an easy task. And as this debate has dragged on and on, I have often asked myself why User RoySmith (talk · contribs) the non-admin who closed off the original debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism handing victory to a minority (the vote for deletion was 22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14), making it a "non-admin closure" that was actually never noted, and who allowed this unholy mess to grow like a cancer has never bothered to participate or peek in to watch his gift to WP grow like a festering sore, at least in acrimony between editors. Imagine this article could have been deleted, nipped in the bud, or as I suggested it be redirected and merged with History of Communism, then none of this would be happening now. All the acrimony and argumentation would be channeled into more productive work of genuine article improvement (hopefully). By the way, unlike DIREKTOR or PRODUCER, my style in more than 11 years on WP is never to run to ANI to get my way, no matter how rough the debate because I always feel users should come to some common understandings and work things out on their own. That is why there are talk pages for articles and for users kindly provided free of charge by WP with unlimited gigabyte space on its servers to hash things out by their mature selves. I take my editing seriously and will almost never involve myself in a subject I know nothing about. Anyhow, I am praying and hoping that the acrimony will stop soon, we all know this is not a healthy environment to be on WP. Hoping for the best. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passover

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

Some initial observations

I haven't had time sufficient to investigate every aspect of the voluminous (and highly vitriolic) back-and-forth above, but I did read Talk:Jews and Communism#Secret police, again in it's entirety, read most of the article and investigated the edit history a little, and its left a strong impression as to which side probably represents the Lion's share of the cause of acrimony there, if what I've seen is indicative of the history there. Initially, reading the first half of this thread, I had a severely amped-up variation of that uncertainty and ambiguity you often have when you try to assess a discussion that has moved from article talk space to a procedural page, there were so many endlessly recursive accusations and counter-accusations involved. But I didn't have to get very far into thread before I began to see severe WP:Battleground behaviour on the part of Direktor and Producer. To be fair, the entire thread is contentious and I actually feel very divided by the content call that was being made there myself and can relate to elements of the auteur duo's arguments as much as those of their (more numerous) opposition. However, what sets them apart is the tone of their arguments. Producer especially comes off as incredibly caustic and personally affronted; from the very start of his involvement in this thread, he seems utterly incapable of reconciling that someone else would disagree with him and he is quite upfront about the fact that he views this opposition as absurd nonsense. That opposition mostly keeps their collective cool and are (relatively) dispassionately removed as they assert their argument -- which it bears repeating, I have middle-ground views on -- and Producer and Direktor remain hostile throughout, and both employ a technique of histrionic threatening of getting a higher power involved on multiple occasions.

Frankly, they are so alike in their indignation, that, taken with other circumstantial evidence, I'd be fairly certain they were mutual socks, but this SPI says that is not the case. Still, they seem to move and take action together and in the case of the discussion I observed, their action seems to be defined first and foremost at displaying outrage at being disagreed with. Perhaps this is simply a case of their being very passionate about the material in question or that baseline discussion there has just become superheated in general -- though given the descriptions given by some of those who have had to edit with them in the past, I doubt it's just a simple matter of either of those factors -- but in any event, there definitely seems an element of WP:OWN at work here. I can't speak to the behaviour just yet of most of the other parties involved in the discussion above, since a majority of them were not involved in that thread or only commented briefly, but at present time I'm seeing Lucas and Spielberg as significant contributors to the bad vibes on that page, regardless of whether their other edits (and reversions) on the article itself are or aren't warranted and regardless of how much they have made themselves available to talk on matters. Frankly I think other contributors there could probably be forgiven for wanting to avoid them at all costs; I wouldn't want to attempt consensus, compromise, and collaboration if I knew such hostility was a given from word go. That's my (admittedly initial) impressions of the situation on that article and talk page, from an uninvolved editor who has no interest of ever getting involved in that quagmire of recrimination. Snow (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] Been claimed I push extremist "memes", "lies", "slurs", and "libel". [78][79][80][81][82] Had users criticize content based purely on feelings of being "disturbed" or "uncomfortable". [83][84] Been associated with people who use rhetoric such as "Joos!" and "commies" when I only see these terms of this sort coming from users who supposedly criticize it. [85][86] And had to repeat many times for users to discuss and use the talkpage and not edit war with one liners in summary boxes or throw attacks on the talkpage.[87][88] It gets old, one gets tired of repeating themselves, and given the environment that I am in I'd say I've been pretty patient and calm all things considered.

To add to all this I had then been indef blocked on a hunch by Jehochman (an admin who is personally involved in the discussion and considers the article "ugly bigotry") with an apparent "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. Had him throw a clear CU finding under the bus in favor of believing that some elaborate conspiracy is in play and when asked for evidence as to why I and another user had been blocked, had him "point to long discussions to justify [his] actions" (as one admin put it) or later claim he's "too busy" to do so. [89][90] Only until numerous editors told him how ill-advised such an act and reasoning was did he decide to undo this. [91][92][93][94][95] In the midst of all this I had serious false accusations thrown out liberally at me in the full knowledge that I can't defend myself in any capacity whatsoever while blocked [96] and had backpattery be sent to those responsible for winning the "battle". [97][98] Now I note that you've commended one of these users for this effort despite only having an "initial impression" on the matter. [99] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to point out though that if they are at times hostile or caustic, it is secondary to having to deal with other editors who...let's be honest here...give every impression that they are there to sabotage the article because they were unable to get it deleted at the recent AfD. I know from experience that it is extremely frustrating to work with others who don't have the same goals as you do, i.e. article improvement. Having different POVs is fine and is to be expected, that's how some of our best articles hit the WP:NPOV sweet spot by having many voices contribute. But here, what it looks like is Producer, Direktor and a few others approach it as "here's a subject that is notable, let's write about it", while others are of the "this is vile antisemitism that personally offends me, what can I do to minimize that?" Tarc (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PRODUCER refers to "users [who do this or that] ....without any fear of sanctions on their part" and gives a string of diffs, they very first one which is of a user who was blocked because of their edits and actions with regard to Producer and is asking, in vain, for their account to be closed permanently because s/he does not want to participate on a site where one cannot challenge anti-Semitism [[100]. That user has retired from editing this site and I can certainly understand that. I have lost track of how many times PRODUCER has referred to me feeling "disturbed" by a particular aspect of that article, as if that is some sort of trump card showing the irrationality of what he faces, I am not ashamed of feeling disturbed by blatant anti-Semitism. I would point out that that article was quiet yesterday with user Pharos making a lot of edits that no one objected to. Today with Producer's return edit warring has started right back up again. PRODUCER and DIREKTOR should both be removed from editing that article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the possibility exist that that user's claims of antisemitism were found to be a bit...lacking in convincing-ness, if not outright false. Same with the sockpuppet accusations. This project has various forms of dispute resolution and means to deal with problematic editing and editors, but the problem is that most editors do not willingly submit themselves to the authority of others around here. So we have several editors over the years make the sock accusations against Producer & Direktor, the SPI is filed, the SPI is closed with no evidence found. Yet 4 years later, editors still toss the accusation around. Presumably this Atlantictire filed a complaint somewhere such as ANI about the antisemitism he/she perceived, yes? It appears that the complaint was found to be less-than-convincing or credible, thus no action taken against Producer and/or Direktor. Yet the accusation is still tossed around. Do we see a pattern yet? The thing is, very, very few editors enter into our various means of dispute resolution with the honest intention of listening to a 3rd party arbitrate the disagreement; instead, they enter into DR with the expectation that their p.o.v. will be validated. And when it isn't the outrage begins. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any comment about whether it was right for Atlantictire to be blocked or not, I am just pointing out that PRODUCER said users are free to call him names without fear of sanctions and gives a long string of diffs, the very first one which is of a user who was blocked for calling him names, among other things. Did he think no one was going to look at those diffs to see what they said? It is an obvious lie.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well y'know, I could declare right now that I don't want WP:NPA invoked to protect me and say "ok Smeat75, you are free to call me an asshole whenever you like, I won't do a thing". That's all well and good for me and for you, but other users and admins may not be so wild about that atmosphere being allowed to exist, and act accordingly. Now that I read through more of those diffs, I do remember who Atlantictire was now, the infamous "eat my fuck" guy, who was discussed here. You can't go around being that nasty, other people will step up and squash that every time. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again, I am not defending Atlantictire or making any comment about whether the block was justified or not, I am pointing out that PRODUCER has posted an obvious, blatant, very clear lie on this page. "I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[101]' He says people can call him names without any fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who was blocked for calling him names, among other things, it is a transparent lie.Smeat75 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Did Producer file the complaint that led to Atlantictire's block? If the answer is "yes", you may have a point. If the answer is "no", your continued smears, calling this editor a liar, are running afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. He says people can call him names without fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who has been blocked for calling him names. Contradiction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people CAN call him names, but his error was perhaps in the declaration of "no fear of sanction will come to you", as that was quite beyond his control. That doesn't make it a contradiction, it makes it a "making a claim that one cannot enforce". Again per my example above, I can tell you to call me whatever names you like and I won't care. But 3rd parties may indeed care and take action; my words to you are not binding on them. And yes, in the future I could envision indulging in a slight bit of glee at your misfortune as Producer did, as after all, you are responsible what comes out of your own mouth, or fingers, as it were. No one but Atlantictire was responsible for Atlantictire's words and deeds. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just say this. I don't know what the deal is with the editors who created and defended that line of garbage some called an article. You don't create an article called "Jews and Communism" without knowing the history of the antisemitic canard. Especially when you have a line up of all those sources. As for PRODUCER being offended by my comments about the article, I could give a shit. There was clear intent on creating that article, and anyone who knows the history of the "Jews and Communism" canard knows this. I don't care how many well meaning editors work on that article, as long as it's titled and themed as "Jews and Communism", it should be deleted. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone is free to file another AfD, esp after the last one ended not in "keep" but "no consensus". Perhaps more editors will see it as un-salvageable this time around. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to think that more editors would see it as salvageable this time around, giving the evolution from the initial version by the participation of new "well-meaning" editors (such as myself!). However, I do think that possibly the title and some of the scope issues could use some more thought, and would encourage people to participate, and not to be standoff-ish and wait for another AFD (which hopefully we can avoid!).--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you want to "fix it"? Would you want to fix an article titled Negros and Crime? How about Homos and Pedophilia? That article was created the same way those articles would be. Looking through sources, trying to find connections, and taking those connections and adding them all together. Which is what we call on Wikipedia, original research and synthesis. And the articles would be created for the same reason, the original author would have to know there is a racist/antisemitic connotation to the topic, but would delve into subject by using the same kinds of sources the racists/antisemites would use. Just search "Jews and Communism" with Google. Any non anti-Semitic results on the first page? No. How about the second page. No. There is an insipid meaning to the phrase, and I wish those who know about it's meaning and what is trying to be accomplished would step up and stop it. Instead of trying to "fix" something that cannot be fixed. Time spent trying to fix it could be used in getting rid of it. It's an insult this was not deleted in the first place. The results were obvious and the closer made a piss-poor decision. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not going to offer any defense of the original version of the article. And neither am I going to defend the name, which is pretty bad, and which can probably be changed. However, I am convinced by my reading of numerous sources that the Jewish experience with Communism in the 20th century (including Soviet Antisemitic activities) is a notable topic, and we should have some sort of article on it.--Pharos (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on my first page in a google search for "jews and communism" I get Stanisław Krajewski's paper "Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists, in Poland, Europe"(cached version) which is cited in the article. I'll note that it ends with the statements "Talking about it must not be left to antisemites. Sensitivity and good will is needed to understand the story of Jewish communists." If only editors could relax and find the sensitivity and good will to collaborate on the topic. Maybe a dedicated article isn't needed, maybe there are better ways of handling it, I don't know or particularly care, but people should try to relax and focus on building encyclopedic content. It's not a badge of shame. It's just history, a tiny part of the "information of everything". Maybe one day, everyone will agree with Ben Katchor's view that "racial identity is just a dangerous fantasy" (from his interview with Derek Parker Royal) and there will be peace and goodwill throughout this land of Wikipedia, but for now it would be better if people stopped taking shots at each other. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Tarc said: certain editors involved over there give every impression that they're out to sabotage the article: their proposals and positions are suggestive of a disdain for the quality of the article, while disruptive users like Smeat75 have gone out of their way to render constructive discussion on that page as difficult as they can, through frequent flaming and (otherwise-useless) attack threads. This was well demonstrated by Producer. Pharos is indeed a notable exception in that regard, and hats off to him. But that's just part of the problem.

The main problem is that editors refuse to abide by the Wikipedia editing standards. In spite of my best efforts, WP:CON and WP:BRD have no meaning on that article whatsoever. Editors (Pharos included) insist that their ability to gang up and revert-war authorizes them to override opposition on the talkpage.
And that is indeed the core issue here: while there's edit-warring there can be no civil discussion, while there's no civil discussion there can be no resolution to the outstanding issues. This is all that needs to be done (at least for starters): WP:CONS needs to be enforced. With blocks, if necessary, for anyone who violates the policy. Or rather goes on violating it.

Uphold policy. Simple, really. And I do hope admins will help. -- Director (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is a good concept to generally focus on during periods of contention, but from what I've observed, cavalier editing attitudes and even edit warring are less an issue than the general inability of parties to give ground and work collaboratively once discussion has started. On a separate point, if you are having to "enforce" consensus on more than half of the active editors on the talk page, it's likely you never achieved it in the first place. Snow (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if half of the "more than half" arrived later and only started complaining after weeks have passed (once one of them brainstormed another in the series of "lets delete this now!" ideas). -- Director (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I"m afraid this type of attitude toward "latecomers" is pretty much the definition of WP:OWN. You perhaps don't mean to be doing this, but that is certainly the effect.--Pharos (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR the tone and stance you adopt are just too harsh. You come across as too much of a "boss man" when WP requires an ability to get along with a range of editors with who are only human beings with a wide range of abilities, time on their hands and other qualities. Editors are not "worker bees" who if they do not "punch in their cards and salute 'the boss'" at WP are fired or censured en masse. That is not the way to go about things. You must also show more respect for the obvious high level of intelligence and education of all editors who have gotten involved so far. For obvious reasons this is a highly emotional and sensitive topic to many people. Not every person from any ethnicity and religion would take kindly to talk calmly about the relationship of their group or coreligionists with a highly volatile topic such as the divisive and controversial communist ideology. One cannot pour hot water on humans and then say hey why are you screaming, cursing, and doing all sorts of things. While you and PRODUCER have obviously mastered some material about this topic, and your unique highly collaborative method of trying to enforce this topic from your own POV's that in in the long run is an illusion/delusion and impossibility, as you can tell, because there will always be others with opposing POV's and you will just have to get your minds around that just as you would like others to be respectfully accepting of yours. I think that the following post by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) [102] gives the rest of us who have not had the pleasure of working collaboratively with you and PRODUCER very important insights into your methods and modus operandi. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IZAK, you shouldn't be so modest about your neutrality and the good faith with which you deal with other hard working contributors. Apparently, there are many of us who should be thanking you for showing us the meaning of civility. I've found your courteous, yet straight-talking approach to be most edifying[103]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais is a highly biased "background" provider, to say the least. Quite simply, I imagine he still hates my guts for insisting that Wikipedia not cover up Chetnik collaboration with the Nazis and their ilk (you know, stuff like this). In fact if I recall, the affair ended with him getting topic banned or something for tendentious editing. Personally I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for any of his "opinions" on my character. -- Director (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to dignify Fkp's biased complaints with a response, but seeing as IZAK is citing it as some definitive proof it should be known it is him not I that had ARBMAC sanctions placed for disruptive editing in the area. [104][105] I've collapsed this "evidence" as this discussion is already convoluted enough as it is. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, I don´t "hate you" because of you having your own opinion on the matter (everyone is entitled to disagree and opposing views should be welcomed to form consensus), I disagree with your methods of discussion and dealing with opposing editors. You make it allways a matter of win/loose and you use all partisan methods to win. Also, I don´t know how you talk about my sanction when you have a full page of sanctions and blocks. I dare to say that my topic ban at that time must have been the most exagerated TP of all time and I ended up banned because you and other users made the environment there so nasty and toxic that admins simply gave up to the easiest solution to your folcloric complains (at that time you made so many reports and you and Producer knew pretty well how to present the complains in order that when one came there to defend himself, admins unfamiliarised with the matter were already convinced by you).

Beleave me or nor, I actually came here to defend the two of you against the anti-semitic accusations. I am familiarised with your region and from years-long experience with you I know that you are a Croatian from Split who is a leftist, so I know that racism and anti-semitism was never even near you. The problem allways starts when some users oppose some of your edits and you start a full-scale war. It has been repetitive in many subjects around wikipedia. Here for instance (Talk:Yugoslav_Front#Alternate_proposal_2_.28National_Liberation_War.29) you clearly push a POV title in which the fight of your "Tito Partisans" would be the main subject, when you are not supported in that by absolutely anyone and all except you recognise the complexity of the war there. You simply deny that monarchsts also fought to liberate the country from Axis and had it as goal. I don´t agree with your attitude here on WP. This Jews and Communism was just another exemple where instead of working towards compromise you just entrered in war with another group of editors. And I think you didn´t even had the necessity to have conflict there, you could have just compromised easily there. But no, it is not your way, you like it more to fight, then enter into reports, make ir all escalate from one incident into a full-scale world war. FkpCascais (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your observations are very interesting - your experience of direktors attitude and hostile superior-tone, chimes with mine actually, -also I remember reading George Orwell and his wondering about how fair the treatment of Draža Mihailović was- Sayerslle (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed :) The entire subject of Draza Mihailovic Chetniks is very complex. However we had Direktor and his team grabbing the articles and writting them the way they wanted, which, as everyone can see, is all about "Chetniks posing with German troops" as if that was smple as that and only that mattered. I don´t want even to recall the horror that those 2-3 years of fighting with Direktor were. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Fkp. It would be nice if you tried to keep your pro-Chetnik agenda out of at least some of the disputes I happen to get involved in. -- Director (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@TParis: The original edits of the storyline sections clearly have Copy/Paste moves from Soaps.com, I was simply following the template, which clearly states only an Admin can remove it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to speak with this user about her edits with other pages, that continue to fail Wiki standards, and instead of discussing back, she keeps reverting them and asking to not disrupt "her" work; user is clearly unable to work amicably within Wikipedia as a neutral editor, and their user page clearly states to not get on her "bad side". That is not the type of editor I believe Wikipedia wishes to house. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My interactions with Princessruby have generally been more civil (one deletion request and one request for advice) and they don't seem that disruptive; however, I didn't see their user page or their interactions with you. I have asked them to respond to the thread you started; despite their assurance on my talk page that they would do so, they haven't responded yet. APerson (talk!) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hoops gza has previously caused problems by adding individuals who do not meet the criteria for List of Nazis to that page and Category:Nazis, even going so far as to remove those criteria from the page and claim that they'd been added by a random editor (rather than by the creator of the list article, to prevent its deletion). He has also created an absurd number of redirects in non-English languages on the English WP, arguing that the rules against this didn't apply because the topic was special (the Holocaust). He's at it again. This time he's also creating obsessively-specific categories such as Category:Nazis executed by Albert Pierrepoint. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Let me get this straight. I added the Category:Nazis to people who were verifiable Nazi Party members (you can take a look at the German Wikipedia's de:Kategorie:NSDAP-Mitglied to see how this is done). Ergo, they were Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before, at length. Are you saying that you cannot remember this discussion, that you do not understand it, or that you refuse to accept it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can say for certain that Hoops gza was incorrect at List of Nazis, the article's creator was Dr. Blofeld, and Dr. Blofeld was the person who originally added that language. The statement that Hoops gza made in this edit summary is nonsense (easily seen by anyone checking the article history). However, that edit war ended over a month ago, so it's not really worth bringing up anymore.

I'm also not sure what's problematic about those redirects, I don't dispute that there are "rules" being broken but I can't see where they are.

The category you mentioned above is at CfD, so the fate of the category should be settled there. The guideline for creating categories is here. I'm not quite sure, however, what determines whether or not a category should exist, and therefore what would be an excessive number of frivolous and/or redundant categories. To my eye, I don't really see what's wrong with these categories, I've seen some pretty crazy category creation sprees be reported to this board but this doesn't strike me as one. To look at all of the existing categories that Hoops gza has created, see this list. -- Atama頭 21:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His edit-warring is relevant because he's just restarted it.[106] [107] The garbage redirects demonstrate his disregard for Wikipedia rules to suit his own agenda. The frivolous/obsessive categories are merely supporting evidence of his disruptiveness. And his comment above ... is simply baffling. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now he is asserting that the discussion never took place. [108] For someone who engages this freely in historical revision/denial to be editing articles about the Holocaust is cause for concern. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried communicating with him; he just ignores me, off in his own alternate reality. Could someone at least suggest what I might do about this problem editor? Reverting his edits is getting tiresome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More uncommunicative reverts.[109][110] More garbage redirects.[111] Please advise me on whether I should continue to try to deal with this problem editor (and if so how), of if I should just stop wasting my time asking for help and let him do whatever the hell he wants. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely a problem - and doesn't play nice with others. If ANI doesn't do anything (and I think a topic ban may be in order) than an RfC may be the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable, man. Because you two are experts on the topic, right?Hoops gza (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also weighing in here that at August Landmesser he has resumed doing something that was discussed on the article talk page in March with no one agreeing with his position - for him to deny the discussion occurred is concerning, as is his position regarding the List of Nazis articles (which also arose in that discussion). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Hoops gza for 72 hours, noting that there was also a related AN3 report currently open about this case. Not sure if that will be sufficient to get the point across though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it humorous that the header at the top of the Nazi category page says "It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." The number of pages on individuals in that category greatly exceeds the number of subcategories or non-individual articles. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also welcome comment on his exhaustive creation of redirects (e.g. random phrases from "I Am the Walrus", or 2nd wife of Herman Goering and permutations thereof, or Holocaust in other languages even those with non-Latin alphabets with no apparent connection to the subject, etc). I know what Wikipedia policy is (not to do this), but I'm not sure if it's considered disruptive or not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking at Special:Contributions/Hoops gza to see examples of "walrus" redirects, but there is a lot of hyperactivity there, including the creation of a bunch of redirects and a category that appear dubious to me, so I gave up. If anyone familiar with the norms of such creation has the strength to provide a few examples, perhaps a topic ban would assist. In view of the "Ergo, they were Nazis" comment above (on top of the discussion at Talk:August Landmesser#"Nazi" from March), I would support a Nazi-related category topic ban to prevent future disruption and misuse of the category system. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user's last 500 edits to the article space, the Walrus group appears to start with Expert texpert at 22:11 on 27 April; there's also a group of redirects to A Clockwork Orange (disambiguation) starting with Ultra-violence at 20:24 on 26 April and a shorter set of redirects to Full Metal Jacket starting with This is my rifle this is my gun at 03:39 on 27 April. I think the redirects to Göring's wives (1st wife, First wife, Goering, Göring, etc., etc.) to "dad" and "mum" of Mozart and Beethoven (composer's names both in short form and spelled out) and to misspellings of Thames and the different permutations of abbreviations and non-abbreviations for Natzweiler-Struthof are excessive, but I don't see a similar problem with the Porajmos categories; it's legitimate to distinguish that specific genocide. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of his redirects (and other edits) are problematic. But so many of them are utterly useless. Some examples from 27 April include Pornagraphic priestess [sic], Crabalocker fish wife (also "fishwife"), Expert, texpert, choking smokers (also without commas), and I am the egg man, they are the egg men, I am the walrus (+5 variations on punctuation). On 26 April, there were about 70 Clockwork-Orange redirects using phrases containing "ultra violence"/"ultraviolence"/"ultra-violence" (some of which don't even appear in the film or the novel), almost 50 redirects from variations on the names of Moatzart, Wolfgang Amadeus [sic] and Baytoven, Ludwig van [sic] and awkward phrases referring to their relatives. On 25 April were three dozen creative redirects to Erwin Rommel. In March he created redirects within WP-EN from مرگ انبوہ (Urdu), ഹോളോകോസ്റ്റ് (Malayalam), হলোকস্ট (Bengali), 홀로코스트 (Korean), and dozens of other non-English terms to Holocaust, as if there were circumstance in which they could be useful. (When this was challenged, he replied "I think that this one warrants having the foreign languages, for some reason."[112]) He's mostly just wasting his own time with these, but they set a poor example of how redirects are intended to be used. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it appears our friend HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again. His contributions for the past several days include a smattering of personal attacks directed at Christian Wikipedia users at multiple. Here is a selection of them.

• "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words" and " Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now." (Directed at two separate users in one diff) [113]
• "Silly comment. I'll try asking some random people next time I'm in India or China. 'MOST' people don't live in places like the religious parts of the USA." [114]
• "Not good Christian behaviour at all" [115]
• "Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. Pretty sure Easter's not a holiday in India, or China, or any Muslim country. That's taking a lot away from 'global'" [116] and [117]
• "The mere fact that a self-declared conservative Christian editor shut it down hasn't exactly hasn't exactly cooled things off. It's now been re-opened, but peace shouldn't be expected any time soon with that blatantly POV pushing editor still active there." [118]
• "And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post." [119]
• "But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." [120]
• "How sad is it that the discussion has now been shut down by an editor whose User page tells us very clearly is a conservative Christian?" [121]

Those are all edits within the past three days. Let's also remember that HiLo48 has a lengthy block log and was previously topic banned from WP:ITN for extreme incivility directed at American editors. There was also an RFCU on HiLo from October 2012, which includes a detailed table of past disputes where editors brought him to AN, ANI, etc. I suspect there have been more threads like those filed in the past 18 months.
In the interest of fairness, I do have a lengthy track record with HiLo, dating back to our past encounters at WP:ITN and am involved in two of the discussions I've reported HiLo for above, though none of those comments are directed at me. But enough is enough. How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it? Calidum 00:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until Wikipedia comes up with an unarguable definition of "incivility', this discussion is pointless. Anything based on an individual's definition, one that might differ from somebody else's, means nothing here. There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss. I expect more abuse and alleged mud from the past to be hurled again now. As a lone voice against such dirt I have no hope. This is just another attempt by our user above with the unreadable name to silence an effective critic. My thoughts on AN/I are well recorded. I probably won't post again in this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss."

You don't have to address every comment but you might at least try to provide an explanation of your remarks rather than claiming to be the victim here. This is your chance to offer some defense for being incivil. You might not have crossed the fuzzy line of incivility from whence no one returns but it does look like you were baiting other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. This does not appear to be so much uncivil as an opinion of other behavior and the need for some to find fault in that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it?" As many times as people mock others for other reasons... such as being gay. And seriously...I do not feel you have demonstrated that it was actually mocking.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is, in fact, uncivil behavior. The simple fact is that if HiLo48 had made the comments he made above about any other religion, this discussion would already be academic on account of his having been beaten up with big words and warned not to ever do it again, at the very least. The fact that other people mock others and get away with it is irrelevant: this is attacking another editor on the basis of their religion and casting aspersions that they are incapable of being netural because of their religion, and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually surprised by how much I disagree with you here, but go for it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have only just realise this thread existed, and I had not idea that HiLo48 had been making all these comments about me. Yes, I closed the discussion, and my closure was reverted by the person who started the discussion. I believe my closure was within the spirit of WP:BOLD, but I accept that the community wants this discussed once again, and I have contributed to the discussion with a !vote, which HiLo48 responded to with "Your opinion carries no weight at all here now". Anyway, I think HiLo48 is attacking Christians here, and these sort of attacks should be dealt with as we would deal with blatant sexism or racism. Finally, I should like to point out that the comment that HiLo48 has made on multiple pages about how I am a "self-declared conservative Christian editor" is completely false. I identify as a Christian on my user page, but nowhere do I identify as conservative. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me be blunt here, from the above, you are clearly incorrect with:"is completely false" as you do admit to declaring you identify "as a Christian on my user page". So...Hilo's comment is not completely false, just mistaken. I have seen many people on Wikipedia confused with conservatism over such issues and it may not be the best way to deal with others but it isn't a huge leap, just a small jump, which could well be the opinion of the editor for other reasons.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I identify myself on my user page as a Christian, but not as a conservative Christian. While the inference might be understandable, for HiLo48 to explicitly state that I self-identify as such is wrong. And making false statements about other editors like that should not be tolerated. Is it "completely" wrong? It is in the sense that the statement was clearly and explicitly referring to how I self-identify. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it isn't being called a conservative Christian that bothers me, but that HiLo48 specifically referred to me self-identifying as such. In any case, this isn't really what the thread is about. The bigger problem is the assumption that I am not able to edit in a neutral manner, or - even worse - that I am not even trying to. StAnselm (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You seem to be deciding what this is about and I am not sure you are actually correct, but let me say this much, when you make a declaration on your user page you are opening up an entire can of worms you must be prepared for. Just as I have been told that declaring my sexual preference (I am VERY gay) is something I must be prepared for. Criticism is not an attack and I really do disagree with Bushranger here. Assumptions of bias are not what I consider to need admin intervention but that all depends on the extent.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is extensive, in this case. None of my disagreements with HiLo have resulted in anything other than his imagining some fictitious bad-faith POV pushing on my part. I think it says something about his willingness to assume ulterior motives that "Christian" can mean nothing other than "conservative Christian" to him. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[After Edit conflict] I said I probably wouldn't post here again, but these selective claims by StAnselm and their supporters demand clarification. The first two, very conspicuously placed user boxes on StAnselm's User page say "This user is a Christian" and "This user is a Calvinist". That's a lot more than the above defensive claims. This user has gone out of their way to tell us that they are not simply a Christian. Perhaps my summarising that as conservative may not match StAnselm's view of themselves, but I happen to work with a lot of self declared Christians who would definitely see StAnselm's position as conservative. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you jumped to the conclusion that, for me, "Calvinist" means "conservative". And now that it has been pointed out to you that this is false, you should withdraw your personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jumping to conclusions is not a personal attack. If the editor made the assumption in good faith (yeah...I bet you don't assume their good faith do you?) then, if they are mistaken, that is it.....a mistake, however, as I read the Calvinist article, I could also agree that it is easy to make that mistake...if it is a mistake. Conservatism is a rather broad term, as liberalism is.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:BOOMERANG, yes. But the relevant question for anyone familiar with the track record is, how long are we supposed to tolerate one editor who sees sinister crypto-Christian, crypto-conservative cabals around every corner? How many non-existent smoke-filled rooms must I be accused of hanging around before he stops making the accusations? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the benighted part of the colonies I come from, Calvinist groups like the Presbyterians are rarely afforded even the second half of the "conservative Christian" designation. YMMV, I suppose. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get completely off topic here, but while we're on the subject of userpages, it should be noted that HiLo's has contained the following mission statement for the past 18 months: "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative interpretation of the Bible." [122] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:BATTLE, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Calidum 04:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you are making an accusation without any demonstration of its accuracy....right?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had the self-identification on my user page for several years now. I would have thought that declaration of sexual preferences would be a good analogy. I would regard it as totally unacceptable for anyone to assume that Maleko Mela is unable or unwilling to edit LGBT-related articles in a neutral manner. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC

If you cannot see your own bias...you may need it pointed out on occasion, which is the EXACT REASON I limit my editing on LGBT topics. Got anything else Anselm?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen nothing actionable to the point of a block as of yet, but I do think HiLo needs a good talking-to. His comments to Anselm were offensive and uncivil, and I fully agree with Bushranger's observation above. Anyway, he's been rather nice to me so far this go round, but we have crossed paths before. His problem isn't so much that he is habitually uncivil (I suspect a great deal of that is simply tongue-in-cheek), but that I've never seen him assume good faith on anyone's part, ever. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, HiLo48 needs to make fewer ad hominems and should assume more good faith on the part of the faithful. There's nothing wrong with fighting against bias (systemic or otherwise), but it can be done in a more respectful way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't remember any significant crossing of paths with HiLo and I'm not a Christian, so I think I can be pretty objective when I say that those comments are uncivil. They are thinly veiled jabs, mocking. HiLo, you say on your user page that NPOV is important, and I take you at your word. Then you need to realize your own bias here and perhaps pull back to a safe distance. We all have biases, and if we are wise, we realize when we have reached the limits of our own objectivity. This is the kind of stuff that will get a person topic banned if it were to continue. You need to find within yourself the ability to see through other's eyes here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not Christian either, but I am a member of several projects and help collaborate with Christian editors. What I see above is not all entirely uncivil. Some of it could be seen that way and I won't argue against that. But what I will say is that the OP was accusing the editor of attacking editors for just being Christian and that is something I don't see demonstrated. Sure, it is easy to say the remarks are uncivil, and I can see why there would be a perception of such, but I do not see this as an attack against Christians in General. Editors should not be discussing the contributor. Just comment on the contribution. So in that way, Hilo is clearly in the wrong. But I also feel the OP here has too much of a record with the editor and may well have past encounters over shadow their view. Christians editors are very much like Gay editors. They have to remember that not everyone is Christian and that being an openly declared Christian or gay editor does not mean others cannot comment on what bias they may be perceiving. To me this filing is a lot like one bias against another. I do agree that Hilo only endangers their own editing privileges when they focus on others and not the content.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be going off-tangent but I think it's a mistake to lump editors who share one characteristic in common as acting in a similar way. For one thing, most editors do not have userboxes on the User page declaring their personal identification so it is very likely that the majority of Christian, atheist or gay editors do not "mark" themselves as belonging to that particular group. So, any generalities one makes is based on encounters one has with a small subset of any particular demographic group. And, as sociology shows, there is usually more variation among members of one group than between members of different groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I follow what you are saying, just that in this case the editor has clearly decided to declare their affiliation and preference and are also very involved in editing, not just Christian articles, but other religious articles of different faiths. I trust their good faith, but that is not going to be the outcome or perception of everyone. The main reason we have these user boxes is for declaring your interests so that others can look at edits that are associated with the declaration. In the case of Hilo's comments, they don't appear to be generalizing but being a bit specific about the Christian interests of the declared editor. Sure, variations are going to occur, but here the issue seems to be that one editor feels attacked for their declaration and having it mentioned (far too many times perhaps). But the mention of one's close associations as declared are not the issue. The issue is the persistent and rude manner in which Hilo makes these comments and comes across as attacking the individual for the faith when, in fact, they may not be attacking but simply criticizing the editor over issues related to the subjects they edit. At any rate this does not appear to actually be a case where the editor is being attacked just because of their faith.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a much clearer definition of conflict of interest than it does for incivility. The former explicitly mentions religion as an area where it should be applied. For a long time I've been tying to work out why it simply isn't. The only conclusion I've come to is that it's obviously part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of COI applies here? Since you mention that the policy mentions religion, I'm guessing you're referring to WP:EXTERNALREL, but I'd like to be sure before I respond.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section break (HiLo48)

(e/c) HiLo may not intend to be incivil or to hurt anyone with his comments, but intention is usually not the most important factor in such issues. The very fact that his name is well known in these parts, and usually not for the best of reasons, says that - putting the most positive blush on it - he is not aware of his own strength when it comes to a propensity for getting into hot water. It would be a sign of his good faith if he could come here and simply acknowledge that some editors have been hurt by his comments, whether or not he intended that hurt. That would be a good step. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Intent is the very issue here not just accidently hurting someone's feelings. People get hurt over very straight forward civil remarks. Seriously. I had someone yell at me and then state on their user page that they were quitting Wikipedia over a comment I made about what I perceived in a suggestion they made during a dispute on the Homosexuality article. There was no attack on them and was speaking directly about the suggestion they made about the content. They blew up and accused me of a number of things that were really off base. If we were to start issuing sanctions and warnings over the hurt feelings of others.....there would be no one left to edit the encyclopedia.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good parallel, Mark. You are talking about one user being offended by your comments and you view them as being unreasonable. It's much different when multiple editors are having the same kind of negative encounters with a single editor that revolve around the same diatribe of how lousy and biased Christianity is. If several editors are having abrasive experiences with another editor, you shouldn't fault them for being easily hurt. The difference is that your example was a solitary incident, there are not a lot of people saying they are quitting Wikipedia over your comments. That's not the case in this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one-off incidents like that will happen. But HiLo is not part of any one-off incident; there's been a whole swag of them involving him at the receiving end of criticism. I read this page from time to time , and I don't recall ever seeing HiLo say words to the effect of "I wasn't out to hurt anyone, I was just telling it like it is. I'm sorry if I hurt people, and I'll try in future to word my remarks and make my points in a less personally hurtful way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People in the past got upset with my swearing. (In some cases I didn't even regard what I said as swearing, but whatever.) I don't swear here now. Or at least I try not to. It's obvious that the linguistic environment in which I live and work is one that many here would find unacceptable. Swearing is simply part of normal discourse. I now put a lot of effort into trying tot use a form of language that doesn't come naturally. But this isn't about swearing. Also, several people who have brought complaints about me here are no longer with us on Wikipedia. (Boomerangs fly in unusual ways.) Their complaints were never valid. This is why I have concerns about AN/I being primarily a place where old mud can be thrown again and again and again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the comments having a chilling effect on participation. When someone is constantly making slightly uncivil comments that appear to have a particular bias, yet they each slide under the block radar, neutrality dies a death by a thousand cuts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what makes the most sense to me. Little cuts that are constant can cause a great loss over time. Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the same apply to the problem created by the fact that our articles on religious topics naturally attract a majority of editors who are adherents of those religions, some of whom cannot help applying their inevitable biases in favour of those religions? Our systemic bias means that Christianity will be the religion with the biggest problem of that kind. Neutrality died long ago on some of those articles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably, that is a concern and having editors who are skeptics/other to participate in those articles can be highly beneficial to our goals of neutrality. That only works, however, if the editors are commenting about the merits and not about each other. You are a very experienced editor, but Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (shown right) comes to mind. Personally, I still refer to it regularly to remind me to stay on the merits. I haven't questioned your ability or intent, only your methods. I understand it gets frustrating at times (which might indicate it is time to edit something less contentious for a day or two), but you have to see why I'm concerned, and why it looks like bias to others. You can't correct someone's bias by being equally biased in the opposite direction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I think this hits the nail squarely on the head.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• HiLo48's incivility is unacceptable. You could replace the word "Christian" with any religion or ideology and the problem would still remain. And, in any case, the criticism he presents has nothing to do with religion but with politics. I would like to see him given a final warning and told that if he does it again he will face a long block. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define "incivility". HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Incivility is the opposite of what you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it Hilo, you cannot attempt to right the wrongs that you perceive. We are simply not here as editors for that. You should really disengage from these topics voluntarily for a while because whether you agree or not, this will only lead to either a topic ban (which sounds more and more appropriate here) or worse, a block. I think admin has been very patient with you. At some point the patience is going to wear off.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of other things to do, and probably will pay less heed to the disaster area of our religious articles for a while. I'd just like to see some independent, rational responses to the attacks on me in the initial post in this thread. Let's look at the second point in that litany of alleged sins. My apparent sin began with he words "Silly comment", and it was. I won't ever apologise for that kind of post. Several of the other evils I have apparently committed fall into the same category. If other editors post rubbish, I will point it out. Sorry about that. So what will be done about the falsehoods and silly allegations that have been written about me here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually pretty simple. I am sure more than a few editors have taken note of the fact that an allegation was made against another editor that was never properly demonstrated. In other words, the OP made a complaint that another editor was attacking them based solely on their religious beliefs. That was too strong an accusation for this case/filing. But you can let it go now. A boomerang is also unlikely.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? False allegations were made against me. Crap posted at AN/I is part of what makes it a disaster area. The last person to bring me here is now on an indefinite block, but the fact that my name was brought here is still part of the evidence brought against me this time! And so will this be, and most of the allegations are absolute rubbish. There MUST be some consequence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're mistaking me (the OP) with St. A, but I never claimed HiLo's comments were directed myself. I merely said he was directing them at Christian editors in general (of which I am one). I even specifically said in my original statement that I've had lengthy record with HiLo, but none of the comments were directed at me.

As for my complaint, I think it's obvious every editor here agrees that HiLo's comments have crossed a line. So I'm not sure why you're saying my allegation was never properly demonstrated. Even you Mark/Maleko wrote that "Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing." Calidum 00:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) OK, I struck out the mistake, but you are clearly in the wrong in accusing another editor of attacking anyone based purely on religious faith or Christians in general and you are also wrong about EVERY editor feeing that Hilo's comments cross the line. I don't. I made it clear that in discussing the editor it opens the door for that perception, but I do doubt that simply being uncivil is a reason to complain as if anyone is being persecuted. That is seriously outrageous and you never demonstrated such. All you have are some comments that don't all cross a line of incivility.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me rephrase. A majority of commenters believe that HiLo has crossed a line, as I alleged in my complaint. Why you have chosen to defend him is beyond me, but don't pretend you're not in the minority here. Calidum 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's some more of this crap. My concern was NEVER with Christian editors in general. It's with editors who openly proclaim their Christianity, and then, at least in my eyes, post in a way that shows more concern with promoting Christian views than creating a great, impartial encyclopaedia. Please retract the falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this thread be closed as it is likely to spin out of control pretty soon.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When do I see consequences for falsehoods written about me? Or does such crap again stay on AN/I forever? If it does, how do you guys expect me to treat the editors responsible nicely in future? I still believe what I said was true, even if some didn't like it. What has been said about me is simply not true. (Although I expect that here.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The only spinning I see is by HiLo and Mark. The fact remains that HiLo's summaries ARE problematic, and it would be helpful if he took the advice given here to heart, as that is the easiest path to resolving the concerns. The OP isn't blocked, I have no idea where you got that idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well excuse me. I am not spinning the fact that this thread was an accusation made against an editor that was never demonstrated to be accurate. It accused Hilo of attacking Christians in general. If you feel that much has been proven than why are you waiting? You have the power to block. The only reason I even intervened here is because this is about one editor feeling others are being persecuted for their faith and this is absolutely a false charge never shown to be accurate. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "The OP isn't blocked". I don't remember that being an issue? Also, I should mention that Hilo is not one of my friends on Wikipedia and that I am actually arguing with those I do consider to be friends. In other words...I have no particular opinion for or against Hilo. my opinion is based on the OP complaining about something I do not see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning as in making HiLo out to be a victim here. I respect your difference in interpretation in his comments, but I have to use my own. As I've said, the edits are problematic, interpreting them for myself. That I'm not "block-happy" and prefer calm solutions is far from a secret. They are personal in nature, they twist the knife in a way that gives the appearance of a religious bias, whether it is intentional or not. I've already said this above more than once, that he needs to stick to the merits. I was hoping for an acknowledgement of such, but disappointed when it looked like it was being spun around into him being a victim. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So, as you can see your words and interpretations of what I am doing is insulting and offensive to me, and I know it was not your intent. No, I am not trying to make Hilo the victim, but at the same time I will not allow someone (anyone) to be accused of such a vile thing without CLEAR evidence. There is no clear evidence. I have already agreed with you above but my point in requesting the closure of this thread is that is has gained no consensus to the ORIGINAL complaint, that Hilo was attacking Christians in general. If that is how you interpret making Hilo the victim then perhaps you are reading more into my words and comments than are really there. If you are readfing my comments Dennis I am sure you would see that I agree with you that Hilo should "Stick to the merits". I used the wording that he should discuss the content and not the contributor and that by doing so it opens the door to the perception of attacks, but I really don't see this as an attack as I have seen these same discussions replacing "Christian" with "gay" and to me that seems like a double standard if it is OK to discuss gay editors in this manner but not Christians. As for making a victim, the OP seemed to be doing that not me.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't ok to discuss gay editors in the same manner, but that kind of falls indirectly under the logic of WP:WAX, so it can't be used to justify singling out any group. I was just hoping to get the point across so I don't have to propose a topic ban in the future. It wasn't about consensus as much as understanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in more than spirit as I have also suggested a topic ban may well be appropriate here, but I see these types of things happen all the time. I don't think singling out any one for their declarations as appropriate, but to me many of the comments were not singling out someone out for that alone, but for their edits. Much like another editor here did to me when I mentioned my being gay, they then singled out that mention to use against me in this argument. That didn't offend me or make me feel I was being "singled out" just for being gay...I declared it as part of the discussion. That is very much what I see happened here. It also doesn't help that the editor this centers around, StAnselm is very active in the areas they have declared as being a part of. So, yes, bias is a factor here and in many ways I agree with Hilo.......just not in the persistence. That goes beyond how I work, or what I tend to agree with as I generally disengage and find great relief in such.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had singled out a group, your comment might be valid. It's not. My criticism was of individuals. The OP has sucked you in. I do feel like the victim here now. But that's normal here at AN/I. Given tat you seem to be basing your demands of me on some content that wasn't true, it's rather difficult for me to agree to anything at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to find that Dennis doesn't get "sucked in" by things on this board. What he and other admin do (and even I tend to) is give as much rope as possible. You might not want to grab hold of that rope.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And do what? I truly have no idea what is being asked of me. It cannot be to never do all that was listed in that first post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must now point out that, rather than help answer that question, Dennis chose to find further fault with me down below. He isn't trying to resolve this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you didn't single out a "group" holds no water. This edit [123] and the phrase "I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." is unnecessarily offensive to more than one person, and was directed at more than one person. I can break them all down but I shouldn't have to, this one I just picked at random. The point is, when your edits are disruptive, your motivation isn't my first concern. I only care about keeping the playing field level, keeping the articles neutral, and keeping the peace, all while using the least amount of tools. Above, I've shown you specifically how to avoid future problems, with the bonus of it making you more persuasive in discussion. Ignore it, or put it to good use, the choice is yours. If you can't understand it, I can't help, as I've explained it as much as I know how already. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Oh, I suppose that was about a group, but a very small one (obviously not all Christians), and I still believe in what I said. I am struggling to see the offence in it. But I am happy to learn about cultures different from mine, where active, even confrontational discussion of religious values is very common. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You went straight to the heart of their belief system by suggesting that "their god" would or would not do something based on the edits here at Wikipedia. That is the line that was crossed there. I don't see that as an attack, but as a very inappropriate criticism of both their beliefs and their deity. I have seen this before and many times it gets pushed to the side or just ignored but I myself have made a point about others criticizing other beliefs or those held as holy. Surely you didn't expect that to go over well.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wanted them to think about what they were doing. I don't believe it was very ethical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to review: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.".--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We WERE on Talk pages. I see little point in taking it further. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sad to see this, as I've found HiLo active and fairly constructive on WP:ITN. To my mind, the most problematic diff is the first one listed at the start of this notice; HiLo cannot assume good faith on the sole ground that the other editor is a Christian editing an article on the Genesis creation narrative. That's out of line, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That deserves a response. It wasn't just the fact that the other editor is a Christian that was the problem. That would never be a problem on its own. I work with a lot of very religious people, who are very happy to join in vigorous discussions on their faith, and its conflicts with the rational world. What we had here was an editor who had loudly proclaimed his Christianity declaring that a word that treated Christianity differently from other religions was neutral, and that he had seen no compelling argument to convince him otherwise. I still feel, as I said in that post, that no argument would compel him to see otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what you were thinking, but it is not what you said; you can't expect us to read your mind, only your words. "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith" seems pretty clear-cut, and if it's not what you meant then you should retract it and apologise. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No point in retracting. I still believe what I said. I cannot assume good faith with such an editor. All the evidence points in the opposite direction. I have explained why above. I'm not very good at pretending to believe something I don't believe, such as saying I assume good faith, when I don't. Did that sort of pretending for a while with the church I was once part of, then, for my own sanity, I had to come true to myself. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to go in circles a bit. If you still believe what you said then I think there's a problem; you didn't say that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, but in that area. What your personal standards may be are more or less irrelevant here; the community has standards that it expects editors to adhere to, and one of them is WP:AGF. It's not something you get to opt out of because you find it difficult. If what you meant is that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, then I think we'd have to see a considerably history of that editor acting in bad faith to think that was reasonable. I haven't looked into the editor's history but I have read the discussion in which you said this; it seemed to me to be in response to a reasonable, good-faith, policy-based argument. I'm not saying his argument is right, but acting in bad faith is different to being wrong, and very different to disagreeing with your ideas. GoldenRing (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't about assuming good faith, after all, good faith isn't a suicide pact. It is about your actual words. Whether you meant them to be so abrasive or not, they are. No one is trying to change your mind, only your methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe those words would be seen as abrasive by most people in my culture. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what culture you claim as you own, so I can't refute. It isn't really relevant anyway. The issue is how it comes across here at Wikipedia, not how it would come across at your local pub. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo has since the beginning claimed that what the community as a whole sees as flagrant incivility is perfectly acceptable for formal business communication in his native Australia. That this is plainly false would be better served by Wikipedia's resident apologists not continually taking it at face value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo has never claimed what YOU claim in that post. Thank you for demonstrating one of the many appalling features of AN/I, in this case the ability of anyone to write whatever lies they like about someone they would like to get out of their way, and hence personal attacks, with no consequences. And the community has never actually been able to agree on what incivility is, let alone a flagrant version of it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out, as the main recipient of HiLo's incivility this time around, that I am also Australian (as I indicate on my user page). StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?