Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:26:26 -0400 From: Jon Awbrey jawbrey@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-