Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:26:26 -0400
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey(a)att.net>
<snip>
Enough.
I have edited articles which Jon Awbrey is involved in editing. The words which do *not*
come to mind are "concise, clarity, reasonable, verifiable". The words which
*do* come to mind are "pontificating, arrogant, obfuscate, verbose, obstinate".
IMHO, the issue is not that he has had to deal with POV pushers and aggressive
adversaries. The issue is that he writes reams of original research, in overdone
pseudo-intellectual style, which obfuscates rather than clarifies any meaning which he
might be attempting to present. When anyone asks what he means, he responds in a
condescending, rude manner, insulting the questioner. When his ability to write three
paragraphs of personal interpretation based upon a one-line source which only tangentially
relates to his edit is brought up as a possible OR violation, he dismisses concerns with,
again, insults and insistence upon his superiority. In short, he seems congenitally unable
to work with others, unless those others are devotees of his personality cult. Any
suggestion of modifications of his incredibly convoluted content additions is met with
similar accusations of incompetence of his fellow editors. He frequently makes long, windy
posts on talk pages, which neither clarify what he is doing to the article nor address any
concerns anyone has raised. A strong mentorship in which Verifiability, No original
research, Consensus, Civility, and simple respect for fellow editors would do far more to
enable him to make productive contributions to Wikipedia than any kind of guidance on
"dealing with pov pushing editors and bullies". Teaching him to communicate
effectively would be even more help. One presumes he has a point buried in the massive
volume which constitute a single post, but locating that point is always challenging, and
usually not worth the effort. This has been pointed out to him multiple times, but his
response is utter dismissal of the notion that *because he is the one attempting to
communicate something, the onus is on him to try to make his meaning clear*. He has now
expanded his love affair with his own pontificating beyond articles and talk pages to this
list, and as is usual, the response is an initial attempt to understand what on earth
he's getting at, followed by a general numbness at the sheer avalanche of
self-aggrandizing fluff.
I suggest that if Jon Awbrey wishes to stay with Wikipedia, he be assigned strong mentors,
and if not, he be moderated from the list. We don't need another 10,000 emails of an
"exit interview" - if he is leaving, a one-line email with the word
"goodbye" will cover the subject more than adequately. One puppy's opinion.
-kc-