User talk:JohnKAndersen

Steve Crowder

 * I have the authority because I run Wikipedia, of course. 5minutes just did an article rewrite based on discussion on the talk page, which you reverted.  You insult him by doing so.  I am reverting you, and then you are free to participate on the article talk page about improvements as I've requested of you many times.  I'm not trying to be difficult at all.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you do help out, please look at Talk:Steven_Crowder, we've been unable to find anything to support this claim in the article yet.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not object to 5minutes changes per se, but felt some relevant information was left out. So I restored it, which unfortunately appeared as if I was altering his version rather than adding to it. I've rewritten it to reflect most of his changes. As far as violations, what about "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (as people speculated about Crowder's inferences) and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" (by insisting he caused his own abuse and used hate speech)?

I am reverting it back to a version that I believe is the most fair and complete, with a much pared down version of the demonstration portion, giving the facts and deleting much of the peripheral information. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone's concern that too much focus was on that event. Also, his personal information belongs at the top, as it is on almost every other person's page on Wiki. Please leave it there.

Milowent, I am not even going to respond to your insults. But you may consider this in your interactions with other people who are only trying to make contributions to improve Wikipedia.

From "Wikipedia is not a battleground": "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion."


 * For everyone's convenience, I've created a new section on the talk page to specifically talk about the organization of the article. 5minutes (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you speaking to me in a civil tone, and I will at this point wait for your response before editing, with the exception of the unanswered statement that he only provided an edited video when he later released the whole thing to make that argument moot.

Thanks, JohnKAndersen (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * The reason the edits need to be discussed is because that's what we do here when contentious edits need to be brought to a community consensus. The personal information, as I discussed on the talk page, probably can afford to be split apart and placed at different points in the article, much as other biographies are - but again, the edit you keep changing is the consensus edit at this time.  Let the editors who are working on this page discuss a consensus so that this edit war can calm down.  As for the edited/unedited version debate - the edited version material needs to remain in the article because it adds reference material that makes him more noteworthy (and thus worthy of an article to begin with).  As such, I've restored the text you removed, but added in a clause that notes that he did release the unedited video (complete with a reference link to the Youtube video).  Again, we aren't trying to provide "balance" here as much as we're trying to provide encyclopedic fact.  The fact is that he did release an edited version and was widely criticized for it by certain outlets.  The fact is that he also later released an unedited version that backed up his original claims.  Both of these facts need to be part of the article because they are part of his history.  For the time being, I'd say, just for the sake of peace among us Wikipidiots, you take further edits to the talk page so that we can discuss things and come to a reasonable consensus.  5minutes (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

5Minutes, I appreciate your comments and respect your efforts to report FACT. That's all I was trying to do, and am happy to have someone who is willing to show both sides. I still disagree about the personal info. Nearly every entry states their name and immediately where they were born, and I can't find any way to understand why this would be in the least bit controversial. Also what I meant was it seems MY comments need all kind of approval before an edit, but others' just make them then get angry when it is reverted or challenged. I have NO problem discussing, if EVERYONE followed that same process. I am not an expert at how the editing process works, as I'm sure is obvious, so I may have done so in the wrong forum, but I know my factual information was repeatedly changed, WITHOUT discussion, merely over a disagreement over fact (ie, the UNEDITED video that put to bed the non-issue of news footage being edited...rough footage is full of irrelevant information, footage of the sky, the ground, in and out of focus. Which is what Crowder said, that by definition all editing is selective. You "select" footage good enough or relevant enough to air. But it was spun to mean "I edited it to only show the parts where I look innocent", and then was stupid enough to say the same? Many things can be said about Crowder, but he is NOT stupid. Therefore, he released the full version, which further backed up his claim of his assault. Which makes the one day controversy that it was unfairly edited moot. The full version is out there; why include an allegation that was promptly proven untrue?

I think if the comments about edited are included meant to make him look bad, then the comment "he later uploaded an unedited version THAT SHOWED THAT IT HAD ONLY BEEN EDITED FOR TIME, NOT CONTENT AS WAS ACCUSED" or something similar; I would respect your advice on that. I don't think his statement that "all editing is selective" even needs to be included, because it is a fact and kind of a "DUH people" when he was accused of editing his footage. ALL footage is edited. That's how they fit it on the news.

And I respectfully disagree; it was not the fact that his "edited" video was the controversy, the story was that a journalist was assaulted at a union demonstration and others put in jeopardy, and for charity he offered to meet the assailant in a regulated environment for a fair fight. That was the story...the assault, not the FOOTAGE of the assault.

That being said, and with some small changes to language, the edit NOW seems to be a near consensus, because it at least includes the fact that he release an unedited video. (But that change was made without my approval, while my edits were attacked for being made without "consensus".)

As for the current edit, it has a problem in that it repeats verbatim information in the "career" section again in the "demonstration" section. So, it seems *I* and supposed to go to the talk page for Crowder and beg people to correct mistakes and include information I think is relevant, when they just change it at will? It seems others just correct it and move on? Please explain why this is fair for some and not others. I'm not trying to be combative, just simply understand why someone can essentially continually write a hit piece on someone with no problem, but when someone tries to balance it a bit or correct outright errors, they are attacked for not seeking "consensus".

Also, people keep asking for citations about whether Greenfield Park is a suburb of Montreal. I've added citations from different sources that this is where he was raised. And of course they are erased, without consulting with me, just amost automatically because *I* made the change it seems.

I've seen the record of some of the editors, and they've been warned repeatedly for their behaviour, and as resolute or passionate I am about something, I have NEVER violated common courtesy by spewing profanity at complete strangers who seem to have a very big chip on their shoulder regarding their authority. As I understand it, we are equals in authority, if not polite demeanour.

I sincerely appreciate your input.

Thanks! JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

where ya been?
John - you missed a deletion discussion on Crowder since you last edited, but article was kept.--Milowent • hasspoken 23:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In hospital recovering from radical chemo-therapy treatment. I actually got a nice card and gift basket from a "notable person" with a Wiki page. Every bit of encouragement helps.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Steven Crowder
I did not say I "would allow it to stay". I said "I'll leave it in there for now", simply describing what I was going to do with my subsequent edit. I'm not trying to assert any authority, but I was just editing the article to reflect the clear consensus on the Talk Page as the primary editors of the article had all weighed in. While consensus is an ongoing process, the article should reflect the current working consensus. I've edited many other articles and dealt with similar disputes, which is why I feel I have a good sense of what fits the guidelines. I don't enough about Steven Crowder to form an opinion on him personally as I had not even heard of him until this incident. My sole motivation is to create the best article according to the Wikipedia guidelines. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, in particular the requirement that you not revert more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. Insofar as you're willing to listen to my advice, I'd suggest actually engaging people on the talkpage rather than talking past them, and trying to actually make your case in terms of this site's policies and guidelines. MastCell Talk 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What in the world are you talking about? I haven't reverted the current page, although my edits were repeatedly reverted months ago. Is this another mistaken identity meant for someone else like when you gave another editor credit for getting input at the NPOV noticeboard when it was me that did it? Please be more careful about who you warn/praise. You really could upset someone by accusing them of something they didn't do. As careful as you are about protecting any "implication" about allegedly corupt prosecutors, you seem quick on the trigger to accuse wiki editors of things that are completely out of left field. If this is another case of not knowing who has done what, let me know, no harm no foul. Otherwise, please provide examples of when this was done. As you know, this page had essentially been 'locked' by editors asserting undue authority, so obviously I wasn't doing any reversions. Please be more careful with your accusations.JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Once again, we seem to be inhabiting different realities. In mine, you've reverted at a number of times over the past few days. For example, you actually reverted 4 times on April 1-2, nearly violating 3RR:
 * 02:49, 1 April 2013
 * 03:09, 1 April 2013
 * 03:40, 1 April 2013
 * 04:51, 2 April 2013
 * To make matters worse, you were edit-warring to restore blatant violations of this site's policy on biographical material - that's a serious problem. You have a number of more recent reverts, from the past several days:
 * 05:23, 11 April 2013
 * 08:50, 12 April 2013
 * All of these are instances of you reverting the article this month. In your response, please acknowledge the existence of these edits so I can be assured we're speaking the same language. MastCell Talk 23:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * MastCell- Of course we are speaking the same language. There is no need to be uncivil. I reviewed each and every one of the edit you cited. I don't consider those edits reversions, as some of it was changing *MY OWN* wording for clarity, restoring critical information, and some basic cleanup of repeated sentences. Did you read the NOTES on them? Referring people to the talk page, a common mechanism of BRD desperately seeking consensus? For the first few you refer to, as mentioned several times, to AVOID a edit war, other editors had said that no changes should be made on the page until discussed on the talk page. So in some cases it was simply going along with the process that was forced on me and inviting the editor to propose changes on the talk page. Not to pick nits, but I believe the 4th example was more than 24 hours later, but that's trivial.  Seemingly he is allowed to randomly pop in and insert or delete information haphazardly (did you notice where fat&happy completely deleted that Crowder HAD quickly released the unedited video, totally misrepresenting that entire section of the article; are you saying that should have been left as is?) He can pop in and vandalize, but my restorations of settled language and cleaning up clumsy and redundant language is "warring"?
 * Regarding edit-warring, one can not war with one's self, I assume the other editor with whom I was supposedly warring with was given the same admonition? It's either up for editing or it's not. We all have our idea of what is objective and relevant to the article, and it's been formed into an article that the long time editors are mostly happy with. Except for his disruptive drive-by edits, which seem to be fine? There is an extensive talk page that he ignores.
 * "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I did exactly the opposite; I restored the version to what had become UNDISPUTED content.
 * Finally, I can't believe you included me deleting word for word accidental redundant info as an "edit war" (Look at the original, where the same sentence is repeated in both paragraphs, one out of context. That was mere cleanup.) and fixing quote-cite links that didn't pertain to the content it was assigned to as examples. I actually thought you or one of the other editors would have done it the next day anyway. This seems like selective cherry picking in an attempt of "intimidation". I am more than happy to play by the rules, but expect them to be applied equally.


 * I have read the policies, I am displeased how they are seemingly used selectively when someone has an opposing view or twisted to mean what they want them to. For every edit I've made, there were many multiples made by others. English is my first language. I also recognize when I'm being singled out to be intimidated, and I would hope that a more equal and neutral attitude when throwing out warnings, etc. Reviewing the policy, it actually says that cases of vandalism is not considered a revert (like deleting a whole, vitally important detail like Crowder DID quickly release the unedited video, which didn't imply anything, simply deleted substantive information to the entire section). A quick correction to deleting that crucial detail that ALL editors would agree upon could hardly be considered as abuse.


 * I only want this article to be fair, objective and accurate. I am willing to work to get it there. I thought we WERE there until the mentioned sloppy edits that messed up the flow, put irrelevant info in other paragraphs, broke links and deleted primary info long ago agreed upon.


 * It's obvious you and I have different personal opinions, and that's okay. I will continue to endeavor to keep the page (until new info happens) near its current, near consensus state. I have done a lot of work in arbitration IRL, I am all about compromise and offer/counter-offers in order to achieve a solution that is acceptable. I believe I have done that by following the consensus guidelines that recommends offering ALTERNATIVES, not just saying "no" to every suggestion that is seeking consensus via BRD, and have politely referred people to the talk page when totally reordering an article with poorly worded and repetitive information after the work that literally goes back many months. If you think there is BLP, please give specific examples; if the sources are not considered adequate, another can be popped in the references citations. There were many things that were left out, that were known to be true, but (according to one editor) the sources weren't sufficient. But what is left is solid and alternate sources can easily be found, rather than omitting the biographical, non-controversial material. (ie, they should use the talk page, rather than trash the page on which we've worked so hard for so long.)


 * I respectfully ask that you cease in the implication that we exist in alternative universes or questioning my language skills. I believe my writing at least shows I'm proficient in the latter even if I cannot confirm the former.;)


 * Do I need to send you the posts full of profanity, threats, ORDERING me not to edit, etc? I'd rather not, as we've come so far. But I also will not be singled out due to my input being different from others'.


 * We're almost there. Help us bring this to a close now that we are SO close to a factual, neutral, informative article.ThanksJohnKAndersen (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * The diffs I linked are all reverts, according to this site's definition as found here. If you don't understand that or don't believe me, please ask as many Wikipedians as it takes to convince you. I don't see much use in carrying on here; if we don't agree on the meaning of "revert", then no amount of platitudes are going to help move things forward. MastCell Talk 05:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to MAKE THE TARGET FEEL threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to DISCOURAGE them from editing entirely."

Request for help from an Admin
Hello, I have been involved in helping to create an article for a living person, Steven Crowder. Over the course of several months, an arduous consensus was FINALLY achieved, after I was threatened, bullied, harassed and condescended to by both users and moderators (one who admit they are biased against people in Mr. Crowder's group on his own talk page), being told I "couldn't" edit, and being subjected to profanity. But still, a consensus HAD been reached. I realise this is not a "final" article, as things do change over time. But recently, a user tried to have the article deleted...TWICE, and vigorously and angrily fought for the deletion on the basis that the subject was not "notable enough". Having failed that, he completely gutted and rewrote the article in the most negative POV possible. Not sure why he would waste the time on someone he considers "unnotable", but it seems pretty clear that since he couldn't get it deleted, he decided he would do a defacto "deletion" by overwriting the neutral consensus that was FINALLY achieved through such a long and tiresome, frustrating process with essentially a "hit piece". I have pled repeatedly for discussion on the talk page, reverted and asked for edits to be discussed as we had done thoroughly in order to arrive at the consensus article. Now, my reverts to the last consensus are being reverted back by someone (who ironically fought to KEEP the very same article from deletion and supported the consensus he had helped create) purely out of personal dislike for me as he has made very clear. I am in regular communication with Mr. Crowder, and am speaking on his behalf. I obviously do not expect to have someone write their own article, but as a Living Persons Biography, I believe his page and he himself is protected against such attacks, slants, implications and misstatements. I am asking that the recent "consensus-destroying" version written by RogerThat94 remain reverted, and that his suggestions be discussed on the talk page, as everyone else patiently did despite animosity among some users; we in the best Wiki tradition came to a version that everyone could live with. I need help returning to that place and reminding people that it is about the ARTICLE; fair, neutral and factual, not about the personalities of the users involved. I hope I have done the appropriate thing by contacting you in this way, if I have not, I appreciate any advice you have as I have had no success on the talk page or conflict resolution. Thank you! Regards, JohnKAndersen (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

I am having extreme issues keeping an article that had over a course of months finally came to a consensus about a living person from being trashed by someone with an admitted dislike for the person, Steven Crowder. A user tried to get his page deleted multiple times on the basis of not being "notable" enough, and failing at that, decided to do a de facto deletion by rewriting the article using the most slanted sources/quotes/language possible and completely discarding the much debated consensus version. I believe this is the very definition of creating a page for the express purpose to disparage a person or sully their reputation. (WP:BLP). Why else would a person write such a negative article about a person they fought to have deleted as "not notable"? I think common sense should prevail, but unfortunately, personal differences between editors has taken precedence over preserving the hard-fought, neutral and accurate consensus article that literally took dozens of hours over a course of months to achieve. All they want to do is attempt to intimidate or bully me instead of restoring the article that was so carefully crafted to be neutral, while still considering edits of course. I don't know what to do and could use a truly unbiased 3rd party's opinion. Thank you! JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Unfortunately JohnKAndersen, only an administrator is going to be able to help you with this directly. What I would suggest doing is to submit a request for page protection for  the BLP article in question.  The protecting administrator should be able to revert the article to its pre-libel state and all future edits to the page will require some kind of Edit protected template for the duration of the protection. I'll watch this page for a bit and make sure you get the help you need and you can always ping me with  as well to get my attention quicker. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the word "libel" coming from? If anyone, including John, can identify anything libelous or improperly sourced in the article, then I will lead the charge to delete the offending material. MastCell Talk 19:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Crowder
Your request of me is denied. I've tried to work with you over the past year or so to help you understand the need for a neutral point of view, the need for you to work as part of a team on the page, and the simple fact that the page is not a once-and-done thing wherein you declare something to be done and it's done forever, but an ongoing process of consensus. Instead, you've attempted to take over the page and instead of working with the accepted process, you've instead repeatedly worked to override other users' contributions that don't meet your personal standards. My personal advice to you is that you need to back off of that page and let things fall where they may. If you see actual egregious vandalism, such as someone coming in and saying "Crowder sux", then that's fine, but anything that doesn't fit into your political framework... just let it slide and let the editing community who understands basic WP principles work it out. 5minutes (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your request of ME is denied; to let others with a personal dislike of the subject (or of me) make all the changes they like and for me to just back off and "let it slide". YOU wouldn't take that COMPLETE "against the entire point of Wikipedia" advice. It's unfortunate that some of so-called "those understanding WP editors" to whom you refer can't seem to separate their own personal feelings about other users and contribute to a neutral article, free of conjecture and opinion without using Wiki-lawyering to push an agenda rather than DISCUSS and help author the best article possible. Good day.JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * I'm not sure where your acrimony is coming from, John. Keep in mind that they're editing the changes I suggested and the page I came up with...  and I'm OK with it.  Yes, we can keep an eye out for deliberate political posturing, but for the most part the additions that have been included are well-sourced and meaningful.  You may presume an agenda on their part, but you shouldn't.  Please stop your edit war, or we'll be forced to report you to the administrators. 5minutes (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What you've got here, is a failure to communicate. I suggest one of you requesting a third opinion and see if you can move forward... This is only Wikipedia after all and there is no need to get all worked up and upset over an article.  Good luck resolving your dispute! (don't forget to sign the third opinion request with five tildes  instead of four so that it is only a timestamp. Technical 13 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 5minutes, you rewrote an existing page, you did not come up with the original page. Lots of extraneous detail has been added that we all agreed was inappropriate. The Union Protest is just one event, and is dominating Crowder's biography. I've made very minor changes to this NEW version, putting things like career in the career section. The article you were "okay with" had that tacked on the Union Protest section. So there is no edit war, but just like you or anyone else, I can edit to make it more NPOV and make any changes. The other author who tried to get "your" article deleted wrote it with quotes and speculation that clearly do not belong on a biography page. Just state the facts and let the reader make their OWN conclusion. Acrimony; none, but the continual comments and implications about "stepping back and let the grown ups handle this" doesn't exactly contribute to a civil discourse either. I don't presume agenda, just READ what he wrote in the deletion attempts. His agenda was clear in his own words. Again, he has yet to write ONE word here in order to come to a consensus on his complete revision of the page. As far as an edit war; one can't war with oneself, and you've reverted every change I've made without any attempt to discuss or come to a consensus on this new page, nor has the author. We could all report each other to admins for that, when in the end, I think we all want a NEUTRAL, FAIR article. My last few changes were very minor, and yes, still got reverted. Also your comment about "page I came up with" implies page ownership, as if your opinion counts more than anyone else's. It goes your way, without discussion, even when approached to please try to come to an understanding, you dismiss a good faith offer out of hand. I've done everything possible to compromise, make suggestions, and make the page as neutral as possible and correction violations of the living person's policies (creating an article for the express purpose to disparage someone, as one example). And any admin would see that effort, and also the reverting with no attempt whatever to discuss.JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Third Opinion
Per Technical 13's advice, requesting a third opinion. I support a version of the current article, with less emphasis on an old issue that is now dominating the page; the Union Protest, that could be summarized in a few sentences at this point. Also feel conjecture and hearsay from third parties aren't appropriate nor relevant in this biography article of a living person.05:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list