User talk:Skookum1/Archive 21

Good luck with the trolls
I read your post on Jimbo's talk page and just wanted to let you know your not alone with being trolled. I had that problem when I stopped editing a couple years ago. Now, more often than not, I am accused of being another editor who has been banned from the site, oddly because we shared the same view of being distrustful of many of the admins on this site. That was the primary reason why I left a couple years ago and why they were banned. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that IMO if your arguments are against an admin, it won't matter if you are right, they will always side with an admin. The culture on this site has become one of us and them between editors and admins and editors are thought to not have a clue. If you get too tired of the environment here I would invite you to try out editing at Wikia. Its a lot more enjoyable than it is here and there are a lot of projects to find interesting. Good luck172.56.3.189 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to create an account on Wikipedia Review but it wouldn't accept any of my webmail addresses; gmail yahoo etc. Are they shut down, or now no-newbies?  Never really realized what Wikia was, I'll have a look.  Thanks for the empathy and voice of experience.  I've been through hassles before; been thinking of making a rogue's galleries where I was ardently opposed but through very ardent research managed to win the day; now no matter what I cite or explain, I'm either not read, and dumped on for being unintelligible (to them, not others obviously), or gambits will be tried to twist my words back on me or claim a guideline says something other than what it says.  Without ever addressing the guideline issues raised or the history of the title(s) and their modern context.


 * Damn I could write a book on the tactics that have been thrown at me and anything I propose or try to get done that needs doing.......I definitely need a freer writing environment where I'm not told what words/names I can and can't use and endless niggles are thrown up demanding cites for the obvious or well-known; dab templates thrown on a link with no effort to try and fix it themselves; I won't go off about my experience with "code warriors" and MOSites, or party agitators/p.r. types and worse; all so much bother by so many fiddling with the design and impacting content.....and in my case, anti-AGFing me in my own area of expertise; BC geography/history/toponomy/political geography - the ongoing campaign to block my RMs constitute harassment and obstructive behaviour, but "the club" generally doesn't eat its own, and likes a good kill....the relish in the list of banned editors which I found by looking up Kauffner the other night (who started the whole Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh mess and precipitated all else since) for the judgment, and the sentence, is almost gleeful in spots. Oh, no doubt U. will clip that and take it to the ANI just to say "see! See! See!!" but she's done zip towards constructive work on the articles and areas she and her friends are making so much fuss about having their way.  I understand that

I don't claim to be an expert in indigenous affairs I just know what the issues, and the linguistic realities are, whether re Canadian English or re the respective native languages; more participation is needed from FNs for their own pages but it's a balancing act; my stubs are often that because I don't want to politicize the articles or just add ongoing news updates for them, rather than the textual equivalent of Curtis photos; my opponents in those cases just don't get that these are living peoples and their self-identification is important to them; they are also, in their own minds/culture, sovereign and so constitute "national varieties of English"........

The degree of resistance to modern reality around here is amazing to me; an inherent conservatism with built-in negativity, not trusting its own editorship who started a lot of the articles in question (town and native ones, plus most of the BC mtn range/geographic regions and more); to be told I have to produce the goods, front and centre, based on vague claims with no direct statements by someone who knows nothing about the place but wants to play guideline games and waste time and energy.........that's disruptive and tendentious to the max, but nothing will get done to those doing it;


 * Your words " if your arguments are against an admin, it won't matter if you are right, they will always side with an admin" is why most people don't want to go anywhere near ANI or adminship, because of that mentality....consensus I learned long ago winds up being a club-dictatorship, with single-member vetos; but only for members of the group, not anyone else is admitted into what one called "the community" and their views, even if coming from areas of their expertise, are worthless. Reminds me of the community of immortals that Sean Connery breaks into in Zardoz.  Highly exclusionary and given over to a particular variety of passive-aggressivism, where polite tone is used to manipulate forceful and aggressive statement/intent; provoking response so that it can be condemned; and "my ignorance is better than your education....and I have guidelines!!" mentality that I'm encountering a lot of (Asimov said that about the rise of the new right in the early '60s).


 * So decisions on content and title are being made by people who know little about what they are deciding on, and who pretend to authority over those who do. The imperialistic tone of global English vs Canadian English I'm hearing, and seeing, and the "speak white" undertone of some of the anti-native-name opposers....all disturbing but also part of the world beyond wiki; anyone can edit, and that's part of the problem; worse yet, anyone can be come an admin who learns the game of pretending to be nice, or even having convinced themselves that they are when really they're not...


 * I need dinner, just came in from the gym; broke this into paragraphs for you but I don't think you're the type who can't read longish bits to the point of going into attack-mode about it, like so many.....I'll check out wikia and have in mind a blog for the place I live, something more productive .... and my Lillooet site has needed work for a while; I have had all kinds of stuff I was going to write for Wikipedia, but given the way I have to work with a chokechain on and twenty people watching everything I do and say...... with their finger on the button to punish or banish me at whim......and why? Because I stand up for the guidelines and also stand up for myself against ongoing blockading and criticism that has nothing to do with the issues......or t he content.  Yet who gets told to not talk about editors and focus on content? Me, who's working on content and am the one being talked about....and provoked to respond so I can be hauled before The Inquisition.Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took a while to reply. Been busy. I think your looking for Wikipediocracy Wikipedia review is pretty much locked. I actually did read all of what your wrote. My deep reading skills are pretty good, my Wikipedia bullshit meter has pretty much fizzled out though. Good luck. 172.56.3.170 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Chipewyan people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Skookum1
 * You have been repeatedly warned about the need to use discussion pages appropriately, per WP:TPG. That includes being civil, being concise, assuming good faith, and focusing on the issue in hand rather than on other editors.  The discussion at Talk:Chipewyan people is merely the latest of many in which you have been unacceptably verbose, made repeated personal attacks, assumed bad faith (for example by accusing those who disagree with you of being "cabals"), and expounded about your own personal views on a topic rather than sticking to the narrow issue under debate.
 * I strongly urge you to consider the advice given above by User:Anna Frodesiak about the fork in the road. You are clearly passionate about the topics you work on, but the way you are approaching them is not working. Please choose the right fork! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See also this discussion on my talk page, where I provide diffs of how the unacceptable behaviour continued. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Forks
Hi, Skookum1. Registered 10/27/2005; 80,057 edits. Wow. You've been around so long. You must see the fork in the road because you've seen it with so many others over the years.


 * Left: The community tires of the massive resources spent reading walls of text, of being attacked, and of AN/I posts. They start to think in terms of cost/benefit. WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and even WP:TEND starts to get mentioned. The community has finally had enough. An indefinite block. The talk page grows with posts about how this is wrong. Nobody dares to unblock and see the behaviour resume. You no longer have any say over the content at Wikipedia. You feel frustrated and angry. You miss Wikipedia, a lot. Anna Frodesiak (talk)
 * I miss sanity in Wikipedia is what I miss, and the days when guidelines were not wielded as "policy" and essays were not used as BLUDGEONs as they are in fact being used; I came back to Wikipedia after boycotting it because of censorship during the Canadian election campaign, and since have plugged at re-asserting titling conclusions and consensus that have been persistently ignored even as my personality has been regularly attacked. I haven't even look at the ANI yet because of the inherent bias and partisanship already displayed towards me by the admin who filed that, who herself has engaged in personal attacks and derision on a regular basis.  The obstructionist behaviour manifests itself in various ways, including the abuse of TLDR.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Right: You ask yourself about outcomes. You want the articles to be a certain way, but you realize that you have to work with the community in a certain way. You make short, concise posts. You gain readers and support because of it. You win some. You lose some. You accept the losses and walk from those. You are happy about the wins. You start to see the short posts as a good strategy because they get results. You see how those long posts may have been just been an expression of frustration by bombarding editors to make them understand. Life at Wikipedia becomes and joy. You help many articles improve. You say to yourself "Ahhhhhh, outcomes. Yes. It's all about the outcomes". You buy a canoe anyway. You paddle along and think how great and satisfying Wikipedia is and that you are making a difference, and that you should have brought more sandwiches. You live longer. You have less stress. Live is good. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Now, how's that for a wall of text? :) Seriously, why am I spending 10 minutes to write to you? It's an outcome thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"The community" you speak of is only people who don't want to acknowledge the points I raise and use TLDR as an excuse to not read what I have to say; others do and TLDRites are not "all" of the community. RM after RM is closing in "my" favour right now, the only failed ones are where obstructionist b.s. and "oppose" carpet-BOMBing by flawed and often very biased and misdirective "votes" were given UNDUE weight, and closers ignored all the precedents and guidelines they have already ignored. Outcomes? As far as outcomes go, those failures to properly address guidelines and precedents and where I have been made a wiki-football contrary to the guideline "discuss content and do not make an editor the subject of discussion", which ironically has been thrown at me while I continue to be made the target of attacks, including officially. TLDR is not a guideline....it is a weak excuse being used to either claim I am not worth listening to, or to be wielded as a club....not by the community, but by a club of people who apparently aren't used to sustained argument and are only interested in quantitative character-counting instead of tackling their hostility to things that they can't, and don't, want to admit to....and regularly engage at shooting at the messenger, often in the most crude and patronizing terms.Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. What I'm hearing from you is that we are working within a flawed system and the community ought to be able to read long posts. You may be right. So, what's your plan? You could fight against the system and community to try to change them. Or, you could see these issues as unchangeable fact. Which plan do you think is the better of the two? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of the community have been reading long posts, and are capable of understanding them. The short fuse and impatience about this by those who are challenged by words they are unfamiliar with and intimidated by extended argument are IMO advancing the cause of semi-literacy.Skookum1 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem here is people that think they are experts in topics they have never really studied and jumping into debates based on personal experience over knowledge. The second is people that jump into debates just to chastises people over procedure (this is the one that hurts  us with the newbies and the latter with older editors). Third is bullies that simply think they know best and generally  lack the skills to communicate in a adult fashion. The fourth is older editors that simply cant walk away from a debate without winning - thus the debate never ends.  -- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * that votes have been cast in opposition directly saying that they don't like me is a very real issue here; and JorisV, on whose behalf Uysvdi has threatened me, abusing her powers in a partisan fashion given her own role in the same activities, and her failure to take action on insults made at me, is hypocritical in the extreme. The underlying theme of hostility towards native people and Canadian English that underlies all this is noxious, also in the extreme.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And right now "I" am winning in many RMs, other than those closed prematurely before knee-jerk responses and false statements can be challenged and debunked; Atlin, Comox, Squamish and others all fall in this category; and in the Squamish RM and CfDs I was made a target by long posts, bludgeoning me while citing BLUDGEON against me instead of addressing the issues raised; not all "the community" is "tired" of me; many understand exactly what I am saying and proposing and teh guidelines and consistency and context I am always referring to; those that are hostile to what I have to say are going to extreme ends and regularly WP:BAITing me.....in the midst of all this harrassment and denunciation, I continue to create and tend articles and respond to the inane arguments made in defence of the NCL group's ongoing campaign of denial and obfuscation and derision.  Valuable time is being taken up with obsessive and puerile procedure and mindless hostility and laager-like turf warring; Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You may remember me from a cordial interaction at North American Cordillera. Anyway, someone once told me that "ANI" is plural for something. That is all. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Vaguely yes, I do remember, and that's of course an area I've done massive amounts of work on; see my reply to DangerousPanda here and to the ongoing witchhunt by Uyvsdi....I really do think the adminship is being played here and this whole farce is BAITing....... I'm being told if I speak up again, I'll be blocked - WTF??? Proof to me that the nerdship is a reactionary force not interested in a better encyclopedia, but only in their own power to get rid of those who are in their way.....I'm being monitored by the person who launched the witchhunt and she'll probably go scurrying back to the ANI with that coinage...... if I do get banned, it will release me to write in an environment where I don't have a bunch of "ANI" and wannabes telling me what words I can or can't use, or complaining that they can't read more than 25 words at a time without their eyes glazing over. Being literature and articulate is a crime to the semi-literate; being knowledgable and thoughtful is hateful to those who are not; being a talented writer even worse.  I may not be able to say anything more, as my last block prevented me from even editing this page or using wikipedia email......not just a muzzle, but a muzzle with a gag stuck down my throat.  Dissent will not be tolerated etc....this place has become a 1984-ish nightmare of doublespeak and doublestandards......freed from it will see me branch out, even make a living s a writer instead of spending my days here defending msyself against wiki-haters......I've refrained from expanding or creating various history articles and bios because of the frustrations incurred, and because Ican't speak from the heart, and because of bad article-names are expected to use out of date terms favoured by those who don't actually know the subjecty matter.....the inanity goes on and on and on.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help, but I'm sick as a dog today, coughing nonstop. But I can give brief advice.  If you do speak again at ANI, imagine you 're talking to kindergarteners who have the attention spans of squirrels.  And do so very respectfully.  :-) Will get involved if I feel any better.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Obsequiousness and pandering is how someone becomes an admin, and I'm tired of being disrespected by those who show no signs at all of disrespecting me. That closes on important Canadian social and geographic and historical topics are being made by foreigners whose main wiki-article activity is movie reviews and the like is one of the main problems with wikipedia: people who want to play gong show deciding to make input and decisions on topics they know nothing about, ignoring guidelines and instead making proponents a political football.  I've called it a witchhunt and kangaroo court, which it is.  I will ignore it for a few days and continue with my wiki-work, which has been extensive despite the harassment and the ongoing resistance by those who can't or won't read/learn to do so, instead of making my writing and by extension my personality the subject of discussion.  ANI is a bearpit, full of narrow minds and pompous judgment and very little reference to the real world, I've seen it before e.g. in the 2011 ANI which resulted in me being blocked during the Canadian election campaign for trying to get Stephen Harper ads masquerading as Wikipedia articles removed as the spam that they are, where votes from abroad which were openly partisan (conservative) were made, and the closer was a teenager in Scotland with no knowledge of the Canadian political milieu or any political acumen whatsoever.....


 * it was because of that block that I boycotted Wikipedia, during which boycott Kwami took advantage of my absence to foist the St'at'imc/Lillooet et al. switcheroos; it wasn't because of those that I came back in, but because of the mounting campaign to vandalize/twist wiki-coverage of Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More movement by SPAs and IPs who were the same voices/derisions seen in the trollpack in news forums......then seeing articles where "St'at'imc" had been used getting "fixed" to "Lillooet", which is obsolete and inaccurate, and other archaic, colonialist names in place of the modern proper usages in articles and on topic matters I use all the time, well, that was where last year's RMs came from; Uysvdi's own wading in where she did not belong re Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh is what led to me filing the bulk RMs - which were closed as procedurally not allowed (sez where?) and, being told to file individual RMs, I did so, only to have the usual naysayer claim that centralized discussion should be held....... even though I'd just tried that; now, instead of addressing the issues I raise and acknowledging the "new consensus", my criticisms of the attacks and wheedling made in response to those issues are now fielded as more strokes against me, in a place where the fangs are red with blood and those who love a kill are already talking about dead meat......Skookum1 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Your story above reminds me of what happened at Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) where I was a happy contributor making 51 edits starting in 2012-09-28, until on  2014-01-18 I made a fatal mistake — I added a few  banners such  as WikiProject Canada to the  talk page  and started a whole chain of events, when   an editor we are both  familiar with —  Obiwankenobi --  who had no involvement in that article  up to that point,  showed up and removed the banners I had added with this edit summary:  "clean up. the relationship to other country project is tenuous at best". Shortly thereafter our friend Mrfrobinson showed up in support and the consensus was clear: w-project Canada did not belong on that talk page. By the way did you notice how Obiwan said he was not watching your page, but posted to it right after I did?

Back to FATCA -- I was left with no other option, so on 2014-02- 05 I created FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States where there would be no question this was a Canadian topic. Logical? -- not according to my regular  companion. Mrffrobinson was the first to show up and nominate it for deletion, not once but twice, and when that failed, started a merge discussion (back to the original FATCA the one I was driven out of)— which  Arthur Rubin supports in fervor to this day.

None of this would have been possible without the active  involvement of admin Arthur Rubin who has been making my wiki-life hell since I first bump\ed into him.

All three editors have since joined discussion at w-project Canada: making themselves at home just like they do in my own user space. They managed to dupe everyone - they are the heroes and I am the country bumpkin  who doesn’t know what Wikipedia is all about and they all so sophisticated using all the right wiki-buzzwords. Never mind I am the one trying to contribute content, whereas all they are doing is working to remove it. Hey, but of course this is all one big coincidence and/or a figment of my overactive imagination. All the best, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 8 edits Mrfrobinson starting 2014-01-24
 * 3 edits Obiwankenobi starting 2014-03-26
 * 2 edits Arthur Rubin starting 2014-03-11
 * I know very well that Wikipedia can sometimes be a very uncongenial place, and I may be kicked out soon myself. But there seem to be some laid-back, reasonable Wikipedians as well, and I guess you might want try gravitating toward them.  I don't think they'll be attracted by discussion about "the fangs are red with blood and those who love a kill are already talking about dead meat".  That quote may or may not be correct, but people volunteering some spare time to noodle on Wikipedia generally won't want to get involved with such negativity (unless it's backed up by the most clear evidence imaginable).  I hope this comment helps a little bit.  If it was me, I'd probably think about taking a new tack here.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Plan from here, now that the peremptory and anti-consensus block has ended, is to focus on articles in need of creation/improvement and get busy with long-put-off language fixes on South American, European, Asian and other articles much in need of grammar/wording/idiom fixes. I'm de-watchlisting a huge amount of articles and categories, including many I created, because I'm tired of having to deal with half-educated people quoting guidelines they don't even understand in the course of fiddling with titles on topics they really know very little about and not doing much else.  Looking over my watchlist is a constant tiresome bore of seeing minor tweaks here and there, very little in the way of substantive edits, and endless name quibbling and picayune nitpickery.  And though not watching the RM and CfD boards and the like is a bad idea, considering what went down with Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish, Lillooet/St'at'imc and more while I had my back turned, but you're right; they are shams mostly populated by habitual naysayers in the cliquish behaviour of those described in the excerpts from WP:EXR below.  That I have adjusted my writing format and refrained from even replying to outrageous insults and deprecations from those who accuse me of same I get no credit for at all, as evinced by the schoolmarmery and ongoing pompous judgments seen below; and yes, people claiming that they do not watch my page still come here to dump on me....... and never to address actual issues and REAL readings of the FULL guidelines.  Better I stay in parts of Wikipedia where work is needed and there are fewer quibblers and harassers making participation here highly unpleasant and bothersome.  I'm an old man and don't need the b.s. from those who are themselves dishonest and hypocritical about their own behaviour.  Not being allowed to call someone "dishonest" when they really and demonstrably are is too much like the farce of the parliamentary Rules of Order where you cannot call someone a liar even if they are.Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read these wise observations?
Speaking as an editor who watches your talk page, who wishes you well, and who hopes that you can find some peace in your Wikipedia editing, I am wondering if you have read the wise advice at the essay WP:OWB?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your block
Hi Skookum1,

I see you have been blocked by User:BrownHairedGirl. I know that you have had some issues recently (sorry I was too involved in my own wiki-problems to pay close attention) but I must say I am surprised that it was this particular admin that blocked you -- I thought you have had words with her in the past, at least enough to consider her "involved"? Am I remembering correctly? XOttawahitech (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNINVOLVED: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, XOttawahitech. Yes, you could say I've been rather under duress lately, though am also heartened by the various shows of support for me throughout. As for your question, I'd say, yes, and that "involved" may be too light a word; there is definitely a "history" beginning with the this CfD which I think is remarkable for its invective, but then so are a few of her more recent ones, also. I have some comments on what she replied to per Cuchulain's question, but am not free to speak here by any means.

I obviously am not free to speak openly or point to individual concerns here, which is a sad comment on what Wikipedia has become of late. I made some notes in reply to you just now about details to do with the RMs and comments she made in reply to Cuchulainn on her talkpage; I see Floydian has had things to say too. But I do not feel free to post them here, as I have been warned that the slightest sign of criticism of what has been done to me, and any opinion of mine as to why, will be punished by a longer block. Wikipedia is not censored, but all too often Wikipedians are.

I will refrain from deleting BHG's comment in reply to your question to me the same way she has deleted comments of mine from her talkpage; it probably is not allowed to do so, huh? Please email me so I can discuss this more freely. But yes, "involved" applies and there are COI as well as NPA and AGF issues here; I really don't want more process and procedure where I will be crucified instead of the issues I raise examined; one public stoning for the year is quite enough, thank you.

I'm an old man and have had one round of Wikipedia-related health problems (last fall from the infamous Ktunaxa/St'at'imc/Tsilhqot'in/Secwepemc/Nlaka'pamux RMs and sundry) and find what has happened her not just distasteful but aggravating; if the intent is to drive me from Wikipedia it has almost succeeded, but there are huge areas of Wikipedia in need of improvement that are being neglected (bad English in non-anglosphere-region articles of all kinds, for starters), and I see no reason to quit just because there are those who don't like long "walls of text" and find them, apparently, personally offensive.

As for calling me incompetent, please fix her bad move of Okanagan people to Sylix instead of the correct target, as nominated, of Syilx, which was also the category title until a CfDS after that RM moved it to the mistaken spelling, also. I believe all her other RMs should be reviewed and placed within the larger context of other recent RMs and the consensus that is emergent there, and within existing standards for other related articles in parallel topics/categories.

I don't want to log on again tonight, it's 9:40 on a beautiful tropic evening in Lamai, and I need some dinner, and to get away from the negativity that has been heaped on me this last couple of weeks here. Please email me as I cannot email you.

Anything I say can and will be held against me.....even if I've done or said nothing wrong. That I cannot feel free to speak about my concerns here is not a compliment to "the community" and its "culture", nor to the credibility of Wikipedia as an institution. If I've said anything here that comes back at me with another block, or another ANI, or other retributive action against my impertinence for speaking my own mind, then there are things wrong with this place that cannot be fixed....and can only get worse.

Please email me so I can provide you more links and comments than I feel free to be able to post here.Skookum1 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Skookum1, I can'r speak for any other editor, but I can firmly assure you that I do not want you driven from Wikipedia. Quite the contrary; as I wrote above, I hope that you can continue to work on the topics which interest you. That's why I urged you before to heed advice given above by User:Anna Frodesiak about a fork in the road.
 * If you follow her advice and try to work with other Wikipedians, there will be no question of your being prevented from staying. But you need to accept that you will win some arguments and lose others, and that editors who disagree with you do so in good faith rather than as part of a "cabal" or a vendetta against you. You also need to work very hard on ensuring that your contributions are concise, not because other editors are lazy or stupid, but because they have limited time available, and avoidable verbosity wastes that time.
 * If you prefer to take what Anna called the left fork, and treat the problem as one of others being unfair to you ... then as Anna warned you, the community will start weighing the cost-benefit ratio of your presence. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The cost-benefit ratio of my presence"?? I'm not the one with the WP:DIVA problem - you are.  See below for quotes from what others have said about how you have treated me, and cherrypicked guideline (which don't say what you claim they did) and tried to shuffle others to the side.  Your RM closes were, IMO, COI because of the personal hostility you evince, mountingly, towards me; they also wiki-lawyered away core guidelines; i.e. TITLE; that you posted my response to Maunus on Talk:Chaouacha without posting what prompted it and the completely NPA/AGF diatribe that followed it which contained very, very, very false accusations and a disingenuousness about the "norms" that the "Foo people" ethno title issue that are not borne out by evidence, nor by actual guidelines on this matter, or the actual existing norms, which were there before I began to try and set to rights Kwami's 2010-2011 avalanche of undiscussed moves; "curiously" M also maintains I do not have support for my position, which belies the vast majority of recent RMs, and those five of last year:


 * St'at'imc
 * Ktunaxa,
 * Secwepemc
 * Nlaka'pamux and
 * Tsilhqot'in
 * a series recently complemented by closures at
 * Talk:Dakelh
 * Talk:Shishalh
 * Talk:Wuikinuxv requested move
 * all countrparts to "Skwxwu7mesh", as is Syilx)
 * So clearly Maunus is out to lunch in saying I "do not have support"; in which consensus and reason prevailed; unlike in your "hostile closures" where you dismissed support votes, view stats, and did "get me a shrubbery" on supposed mandatory use of GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar only.
 * Re the link re Maunus' attacks and the others you posted to claim your block was "preventative" rather than punitive, which is the actual case, such one-sided targeting and cherrypicking of me without the full context being given is typical of the witchhunt/lynchmob mentality. "The fork in the road" indeed..... I'm the one on the path of the guidelines and of "trying to do the right thing" and have been opposed, insulted, misrepresented, and now hectored by people who won't even read the arguments presented and make me the issue instead.  And re saying I "lack competence", your misspelling of Syilx was an ironic gaffe that is rather.....rich.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are in Lamai? Lucky you (I think?) Just a couple of points on your note above:
 * It is my understanding that editors are free to edit their own wikispaces however it suits them. I have been getting into trouble about this for years now, because some editors try to edit my space claiming they are trying to help me(?) and I am still having trouble when I reject their good-will even when I use all the tact (I probably need lessons in that area) I can muster.
 * Yes, they're trying to "help" me something like a cult indoctrination, continuing to scold and criticize and demanding I conform to what THEY see as correct behaviour and telling me to shut up when I am confronted by incorrect behaviour.  Being lectured by people who have abused me with a hammer and told to play nice etc....I am free to edit my own wikispace, yes, but even here I have been attacked for my own words; I have to teach in a few moments, I will return later with a few comments on the links used to equivocate the non-consensus block as if it were not punishment; which it was.Skookum1 (talk)
 * Sorry, I don't use email.
 * As I said above, I am currently facing my own battles which to me is depressing because it forces me to engage in much more "talking" than I prefer to.
 * All the best, XOttawahitech (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see....Skookum1 (talk)
 * That is a good summation of my problem, too; in last year's RMs I was baited and sent on "bring me a shrubbery" errands; same as this year with the conundrum and mis-conceptions and actual mis-application of guidelines in "the Squamish affair", I wound up trying to explain things to people who either refuse to get it or engage in personal attacks based on my writing style. See the passages from EXR below.


 * comment Hi Skookum. I'm sorry to hear that you were blocked. I wanted to comment on one thing here you said "I see no reason to quit just because there are those who don't like long "walls of text" and find them, apparently, personally offensive." I don't think the vast majority of people who have engaged with you on various topics want you to quit - for example BHG has made it clear this isn't her goal, and speaking for myself it's certainly not my goal. However, the fact that you consistently do not listen to concerns of other editors and sometimes take a battleground approach (something, it should be admitted, I myself have been guilty of) is problematic. Our talk page guidelines specifically note this issue here Talk_page_guidelines, stating "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." In the recent RM for Squamish, you posted over 100k of text that I, and likely many others, ceased to read entirely, as it simply wasn't worth the effort. I think you make good points and you are fighting the good fight against systemic bias, but if you don't make your points clearly and concisely it doesn't matter, and you'll never bring people to your side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * when will people stop counting characters and start reading WORDS??Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Re systemic bias (including the growing bias against more voluble writers like myself, over those who have latter-day attention spans), in looking over one of the Squamish CFDs or RMs I found a link to WP:EXR posted in support of me (from Moxy maybe?) which had these interesting tidbits, showing I am not alone in my views on the use of "consensus" to impose a tyranny of supposed wikiquette that in fact has very little to do with good content or proper use of the guidelines.


 * RE "cumulatively dysfunctional system":
 * "..... Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say...."
 * "People who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that and must be stalked and rebuffed."
 * " words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments yet refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas."


 * re "Peer review system in Wikipedia":
 * "The main issue never really mentioned for obvious reasons is that dispute resolution on wiki happens on a personal rather than substantive/professional level. Just look at the any resolution board or such, and observe that ~100% of decisions are made on the basis of trite rule violations or other politics by so and so and almost never on the veracity of the content itself. "
 * "This is result of the fact that most admins (or any editor with social power) simply don't have the background to grasp that there's such a thing as "objective reality", and are evidently more comfortable with people drama than arguing or otherwise working with facts. There's no fix for this sort of system incompetence, and as a whole wiki just falls back on the coincidental premise that technical topics are not contentious enough for the incompetent to get involved."

It appears I am not alone in my views on what is wrong here, and my observations about the tactics in discussions of attacking the proponent instead of addressing issues raised are not unique.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In regard "objective reality"; we are specifically not supposed to describe objective reality, only what reliable sources say about that reality (with some exceptions for WP:FRINGE). There are some articles where I know what is in the article is blatantly false, but, as it's attributed to a reliable source, I'm forced to let it stand.  And, I don't see a way around it other than to have a panel of "experts" who "control" the articles.  But, that violates the basic principles of Wikipedia, and doesn't always help if the "experts" do not agree.  I don't know if it applies to your problems, but it does apply to 's problems, where he claims to be the expert and usually the only one who has that position.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

reply to disingenuous "who ?me?"
I should really just delete the following post but will return later with diffs that put the lie to the disingenuousness shown here; for now I will just make it smaller to show my opinion of this bit of blatant hypocrisy:Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I don't read what you (Skookum) write is that I've found it's heavy on personal attacks and light on substance, so why bother? But of course, I must be saying that in bad faith.  — kwami (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are; get out of my talkpage; your oppose posts are full of outright persohal attacks - "no one would accuse you of being rational" and you've used "idiotic" and "ridiculous" and more, and thrown AGF comments and rebuttals right and left, and played word games trying to turn what not just what I've said but also what other people have said, and guidelines have said, that your words here are beyond ironic to the point of being comical.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges
Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a break
I have been reading this snafu. You are doing yourself no favors; please take a break. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to work on improving and creating articles etc. Yes, defending myself is a laborious activity, but to hear exaggerations and hypocrisy thrown at me in an effort to demonize me for expulsion "to protect the encyclopedia" is hard to stay away from; the overall nature of said activity is WP:BAITing and things like the CfD and the hostile RM closures is AGF/NPA in the extreme; who should 'take a break' is the chorus/cadre whose primary activity on Wikipedia seems to be attacking contributing editors by any specious and POV/AGF rationale available; I know I'm not alone in being attacked and vilified this way; and yes, there's far more productive things to be doing than arguing with people who only want to argue.Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are assuming bad faith about everyone around. When you get to that point, you need to take a break.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Assumptions of bad faith are not assumptions when there's a pointless and groundless CfD launched at me, and RMs closed with me as the closer's rationale; never mind all the stupid things being said and alleged the ANI (which I'm de-watchlisting; anything I say there gets little respect anyway and defending yourself is a stroke against you, in the previous ANI I was directly told to shut up and that I had no right to speak there).Skookum1 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * and re "assuming bad faith from everyone around is not factual; there are many people who treat me and what I have to say, and the real wiki-work I do, with respect and GF..."everyone" is hyperbole and untrue.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Get back to work and stop fucking around!
My friend, STOP posting to AN, AN/I, and Jimbotalk. There is absolutely no good outcome that can result from your doing so. You're a valuable contributor on Pacific Northwest topics, leave the drama and the histrionics to the people who know little and who can't write... Just let it go. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep participating at the drama pages, you must learn to pretend to be perfectly sane and entirely undisturbed. Everyone at Wikipedia who does that is safe from the men in the white coats, but the people who don't pretend very well get taken to see Nurse Ratchet.  Cheers.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Who's afraid of the Spanish Inquisition?".....etc. I've de-watchlisted that charnel-house of hatred and negativity, tired of hearing hyperbolic invective from people who can't hear the irony in their own voices/words......on the CfD I'm still there - have to be - though it continues to be a wallow of AGF inanity and false logics/claims/SYNTH see here. Nothing I say at ANI is treated with respect or even acknowledged (other than the call for an interaction ban on "her"), but then those people thrive on disrespect and their own very evident vanities as to their superiority over others and the "right to judge", while being unable to judge themselves, or even act with the civility they accuse me (and so many others) of lacking.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours

 * Responding to this where you replied to BrownHairedGirls' four day CFD summary with "That's an outright falsehood/distortion but all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region".
 * Your recent behavior is not OK. You seem to be remarkably resistant to the message that a large number of uninvolved editors and administrators have been trying to tell you here.  I believe you have a perfectly reasonable point on the CFD discussion.  The way you are presenting it has gone from rude to aggressive to out of control, here launching into an outright personal attack.
 * This is not OK behavior. Any number of editors have been trying very hard to communicate this, but let me say it again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created not by any one individual, but by a cooperative community.  It is mandatory that you cooperate with the community in editing Wikipedia.  Attacking people and insulting them incessantly, as you have done, serves no good purpose.  It disrupts the community, it drives people away from the discussions, and in the long term degrades the value of your own contributions.
 * I have imposed a 12-hour block on you for the latest personal attack, out of the long string of them. It is my fondest desire to see you not respond at all to anyone on ANI or the CFD, as I believe you're just making things worse for yourself when you do so.  I am inclined to close the CFD under IAR with a one-month hiatus; after everyone has calmed down it can be revisited.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 * How about also blocking the admins who have belittled Skookum1 by saying things such as :"Skookum1 hasn't cracked how to work within that framework" and "Would a mentor help?" for twelve hours as well? XOttawahitech (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has lost several contributors who are capable of building good content but who ultimately were unsuccessful due to clashes with other editors. A common factor is often that the problematic behavior is never addressed because someone will chip in with unhelpful commentary that the problematic editor interprets as support for their position. It is a shame that such unhelpful commentary can be sufficient to encourage behavior that spirals out of control until an indefinite block occurs. An editor may be correct in everything they write yet still be unsuitable for Wikipedia because being right is not sufficient—collaboration is required, and that means people have to get on with others. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see either side making much of an effort. — lfdder 00:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * REPLY LOL. votes in support of my position from people who know the material are "unhelpful commentary?? LOL you people are a piece of work.  And yes "you people" applies.  As for the supposed "personal attack", I pointed out a direct falsehood in one or the nom's posts; and it is a falsehood.  Perhaps, given AGF, a mistake from not actually looking at or understanding the categories in those listings (perhaps BHG thought Alaska was part of Canada?? - a common mistake, in fact), but still *FALSE*.  Claims of OR about well known regions and completely citable mountain ranges (which have fixed boundaries and are not subject to change) are mere hand-waving without evidence; the use of NPA to "go after" people who point out mistakes/distortions and "bad actions" is not what that guideline is intended for; "contrary to the spirit of the guidelines".  And Ottawahitech is quite right, and I've said the same thing in the ANI myself - that NPAs and outright AGFs - including the premise of this CfD - are committed against me all the time; touting Wikiquette while flouting it openly.  Stalking me in the wake of her peremptory block is not just AGF, and as noted by someone in the ANI, shoudl be grounds for an interaction ban.


 * It's not me who won't collaborate; it's people who don't do their research but still want to have not just an opinion not based in facts, but wave in the direction of conventions that don't formally exist.


 * BHG has waved her hand at guidelines like SOURCES (in one of "hostile" RM closures, which they so clearly are given they go against the grain of similar closures and both existing and emergent consensus), claiming they say things they don't actually say; her statement here that you claim is a "personal attack" is what it is; not researched, not accurate, and like so much else of her nomination completely misleading and without any knowledge of the places in question.Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The adminship protects its own from examination, and does nothing when they violate the very rules they invoke; persecution of contributing editors and dicking around challenging titles and the like, by people who have no knowledge of the subject matter, THAT is what's driving them from Wikipedia. That includes many BC Wikipedians who were around when these categories were created and took part in what debates there were; to a British Columbian, they're obvious.  But to someone from WikiLandia, armed with guidelines they don't accurately cite or, I think, even really understand, they're "original research"......and yet they have nothing viable to replace them with, and sure as shootin' aren't the types who will undertake to apply whatever other system they come up with; and doing so would involve original research and GAWD, actually take some skill reading lengthy texts as cited.


 * Another acronym got tossed out above; does anyone talk in plain English anymore??Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Further comment. Shutting me out of the CfD during one of its last days falls in the "unfair" category, especially given that it was clearly AGF in motivation to start with, despite all claims of UNINVOLVED and innocence, this is politics, and "in politics optics is everything" and BHG's hostility towards - and contempt for - me is a well-established fact.  This is in the same kind of procedural irregularity as the RMs she closed during the block she imposed.  Have you people no shame?.  I know you don't have self-critical examination skills, that's for sure....or you'd see the bizarrenessx of your action, and recognize that the CfD itself was an NPA.Skookum1 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What's "spiralling out of control" is the abusiveness of admins and the group-hysteria of tongue-clucking and hypocritical use of NPA and AGF to discredit their latest victim; I started work on articles and categories in my main area of contribution, and found the same admin who blocked me launching a CfD that has no basis in guidelines or fact, making mistaken/false claims and labelling evidence and cites provided as "irrelevant". something's very wrong in Wikiland when that is tolerated, very, very, very wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Freeing myself from bothering with being on the dinner menu at ANI, this is what I did yesterday, created and cited articles, and was going to do more today......halting contributions and calling for more procedural discussions is all about not being collaborative in the slightest. If the people opposing this CfD would put some work in filling in the redlinks of List of British Columbia rivers and citing/researching them, they might have a better leg to stand on but they'd also educate themselves about the topic; instead of trying to throw everything out as OR simply because they know nothing about the subject.Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RE WP:AIR Funny you should invoke that to force a one-month hiatus; I refer to "There are no rules" (the FIFTHPILLAR) all the time; it appears that guideline, like others, can be used to obstruct contributing editors and defray discussions to no great end; instead of doing that to the CfD, why don't you read the geography lessons contained in my posts and start thinking with more than a Wikipedian admin's narrow field of wiki-view? The evidence supporting all these articles and titles is all over the actual physical map and the history of British Columbia and is part of the vernacular of the place (COMMONNAME).  Try reading about it before you hastily close the CfD without really understanding the subjects it's about...Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)