Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??
The following stems from this edit by User:Stevertigo, an issue which arrived here very recently. The fact that "the Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "Holocaust denial", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the Jews during WW2.

Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Wikipedia tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but this, and then amending it with this, frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by inviting Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only misses the relevant points, but tacitly suggests that Steve is making his own extrapolations, then trying to find sources to support them. Well, not remotely tacit at all, in fact.

Judging from Steve's other edits (and pages in his userspace) such as this tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention this very recently written item or this BLP minefield, or what can only be described as a contemptuous attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. WilliamH (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on a good many points, but what exactly are you suggesting we do here? lifebaka++ 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Wikipedia's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a community ban discussion would get us anywhere, nor would it be all that constructive. We haven't eliminated other options yet, so I suggest we use them.  How about an WP:RFC/U?  lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it looks to me that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. A little insignificant (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward. How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable? WilliamH (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter for AN/I, which deals w/ incipient problems that require admins to solve. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate.  If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang.  Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can one not use the term "holocaust denier" when dealing with the article holocaust denial? --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good night and have not yet gotten any sleep, so I will keep this short.

You paint a very good one-sided story William. I do mean that. Note of course that neutral observers appear to disagree with your one-sided portrayal and aren't hesitant to say so quite straightly. Your comment above (to those who took the time to review your concerns), "Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward[?]" should be understood as evidence of the weakness of your claims. Their comments above explicitly testify of their literacy in this matter. You have no evidence to show otherwise, and you have no cause to insinuate their negligence in that aspect.

WilliamH wrote: "How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable?" - Your linkage to my subspace (which I on rare occasion use in certain mundane ways) pointed to a draft for an unrelated topic. How do you conjecture a connection between this topic and that one? If you are building an overall case against me, please do so: Elicit help from others and put together some kind of comprehensive report on my behaviour. Not only would I welcome one, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate every weakness in your claims, arguments, and conceptions, and will do so with gusto and sarcasm in full measure to even the slightest vexatiousness shown to me. Your title for this thread already strikes me as a bit vexatious.

I'm going to bed. -Stevertigo 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely assume the thread title was meant to be benign. Cheers.  lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I always AGF, but I would still prefer that the thread title be changed such that not even the slightest degree of slander remain. -Stevertigo 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made the title more clear in that it is about the article and you, rather than somehow implying that you might ascribe to the theory. I assume this is better.  lifebaka++ 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the thread title is completely benign, and all suggestions otherwise are tremendous assumptions of bad faith. WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This thread is rife with assertions of bad faith. I don't believe they all need pointing out.  lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A few people have checked the discussion page and note that the discussion seems less heated. Indeed. But this is beside the point. The question - and really, the only question for AN/I (as Protonk points out, this page is dedicated to specific kinds of problems) - is: is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor? The thing about disruptive editors is, you cannot make a judgement based on just one glance. By definition, disruptive editing manifests itself through a pattern of edits across time or across several articles. That is why WilliamH provided a number of edit diffs. To those who say things have quieted down, I would point out this: Stevertigo has dominated discussion on the Holodcaust Denial talk page for quite some time, occupying quite a bit of space, and all this discussion has lead to not one single improvement of the article. Moreover, it seems to me that the rest of the participants in the discussion do not see any point to this lengthy discussion, do not feel that it is leading to any improvement of the article. This is an abuse of the talk page, which is meant to discuss improvements, and a perfect example of "disruptive" editing since Stevertigo's repeated comments, which never engage what other editors actually point out, is simply displacing any constructive discussion. Stevertigo's MO is to make things up, call it a "concept," and then refuse to provide any verifiable sources. He is a disruptive editor at best - the worse possibility is that he is here to push his own personal point of view with total disregard to our NOR policy. Here is another example. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That this was recently archived yet is on this very same, not yet resolved issue, is an indication of the level of disruption. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced Steve is completely gone, yet. As I've seen, he is improving little by little, as we make it apparent that pieces of what he's doing aren't acceptable.  I don't know that we can change him completely, but neither do I know that we cannot.  Steve is capable of taking the hint from this thread, I know, and is capable of changing his behavior.  For the moment, it would be best if we issued a warning about some specific behaviors (such as starting talk page discussions whose purpose is not the improvement of the article) and see if he does in fact stop.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I am not "gone yet," Lifebaka - I was editing here five years before you showed up. I've yet to see anything more than a few insinuations and complaints, so I don't quite understand how anyone would think I would just go away and leave things in a depressed state. I likewise don't understand how some people can go though life thinking everyone else is just stupid, but that's a little off topic. Anyway, I've written down a few thoughts regarding this thread and others, and put them in my log. It's a bit fluid and maybe wanders a bit, but the gist is fairly straightforward.


 * By the way, I appreciate the title change. Now any slander therein is nearly unperceptible, and nowhere near as obvious. -Stevertigo 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lifebaka didn't mean "gone" as in "retired" - s/he means that you aren't beyond hope, and that you've been learning and improving by mistakes. Sorry, that was a confusing sentence, could have raised all kinds of hell. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience with Stevertigo has, unfortunately, been pretty unchanged over a number of years. He generally shows up at an article and decides to put his own unique and idiosyncratic spin on whatever is there, either by modifying text to suit his own opinions, or by adding his own mini-essays. Though he has been editing for many years, as far as I can tell the WP:V and WP:NOR policies have made little, if any, impression on him.
 * Here is a perfect recent example of this; he showed up at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, and decided to insert his own confusing digression on whether or not the National Socialist party were really Socialists. Aside from its tangential nature, note that (as is typical) the essay has not one source in it. As is also typically the case, on any article he is editing that is actually being watched by other editors, his insertions are deleted. As is also typically the case, he edit wars to keep them in. When defeated, he drops it on the Talk: page, without any accompanying commentary.
 * Thus he showed up at the Holocaust denial article, with his own personal opinions of what the article should discuss - as it turned out, mainly a digression into which groups are covered by the phrase "The Holocaust" - something that is actually discussed in Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust. After days of circular discussion, including several suggestions by him that we should all be working together on a Holocaust comprehension article, he then proposed completely re-writing the lede, focusing in particular on his original point, and making his proposal without actually basing it on any discernible sources. Long exposure has taught me that every talk page discussion with him eventually comes to the question "Stevertigo, upon what sources do you base your opinions"? Constantly hammering on that statement usually makes him go away; unfortunately, in this case, many editors were unfamiliar with him, and gave him various openings to continue his digressions on his own unusual ideas. He has posted several thousand words on the Holocaust denial Talk: page without, as far as I can tell, bringing even one source that actually discusses Holocaust denial. At the least, this is extremely disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, was there any attempt, on your part or anyone elses, to ascertain what was missing in the reductio ad Nazium article? Indeed, as the term is said to not just refer to the Hitler fallacy, but to the Nazi one as well, I.. conceptualized.. a need for a treatment of the Socialism fallacy, and thought that article was the proper place, given the apparent ambiguity in the ad Nazium term.


 * So, I take it there was no effort on your part to ascertain what was missing in that article. Hm? Fine. But in the additions of others, do you at least attempt to ascertain whether or not the addition is actually true? Encyclopedic? Factual? Well-written? On-point? Relevant? Material? Substantive? Accurate? An improvement?


 * It strikes me at the very best "counterproductive" that you and others interpret RS in accord with only inane and destructive modalities that at best resemble deletionism. Keep in mind the context, these are articles in which you yourself neglect to detect any omission, and yet you claim to assert some kind of considered editorial judgment in simply deleting additions to them?


 * "Disruptive editing," indeed. -Stevertigo 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, the way article writing is supposed to work is this: First, you find sources.  Then, you write based on the sources.  Then, you cite the sources you used.  The issue appears to be that you are not beginning by finding sources, but instead writing and then attempting to cherry-pick sources which will support your text.  Regardless of why you choose to operate this way, it gives the appearance that you are pushing a view.  Please find sources as a first step.
 * Additionally, regarding the removal of unsourced content, WP:V stipulates that any unsourced contentious material should be removed. You shouldn't be too terribly surprised if, when you add material to a page without sources, it gets removed.
 * The new title you chose is... Odd.  The first title was far more neutral.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Stevertigo has been around a long time and made many contributions. He isn't some troll who suddenly appeared. So whence this talk of banning him? Can't we tolerate people with unpopular perspectives? Do we all have to be mainstream here? If so, then who should we start kicking out: the gays? the libertarians? the Christians? Please let me know, so I can align myself with the Grand Inquisitor, and feel like a good person.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting perspective, Anthon. Keep in mind also the issue is not about "mainstream," its about this obtuse methodology of cobbling articles together from "reliable sources" such that they don't always make actual sense. In some cases it's quite deliberately so. So some people of course are worried that any future requirement of "making sense" will inevitably cause localized and other special-point-of-view concepts to implode. In fact its just a matter of time.


 * Just to forewarn you, when someone informs The Grand Inquisitor that you were just being sarcastic, he'll probably issue a standard proclamation and declare you "thou troubler of Wikipedia" as well. -Stevertigo 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, Anthon, to be clear, Stevertigo is a troll who has been around over five years. The first encounter with him I recall (I could well be blocking out others) was when he showed up at "anti-Semitism" and argued that since Arabs are semites, anti-Semitism includes hatred of Arabs.  This is the paradigm for how he operates and it has two major components.  First, he claims he is using a conceptual method, but what he is really doing is taking actual concepts and breaking them down to parts that are actually not relevant to the concept.  In the case of the name Ehud, he went so far as to do this with letters of the alphabet.  It is true that Arabic is a semetic language.  But "anti-Semitism" was explicitly coined to refer exclusively to hatred of Jews.  Anyone who has done what jayjg and others call source-based research ... what I just call "research" ... would know this.  As i pointed out on the Holocaust denial page, If Stevertigo really followed his method consistenly, he would be quite surprised to discover what the word "blowjob" really means.  If Sgtevertigo really were commited to his "conceptual" approach, he would go the the article on blowjobs, and explain that since blow means a forceful expulsion of air, and a job is form of work, we need a section on people who blow out air for a living.  This would be a violation of WP:NOR were it not just so ridiculous on its face.  Anyway, the point is that he has done no research, he has no sources to support his claims, in the end it is simply what Stevertigo thinks a word or phrase should mean that he wants to go into the article.  This of course never stands up to scrutiny, but Stevertio argues the point for days, weeks, and this is what makes him a disruptive editor.  Second major element: Stevertigo has a clear preference for screwing with articles that have to do with Jews or topics sensitive to Jews.  Although by his method we would have a long debate at the page on blowjobs, or "logrolling" or "parkway" or "driveway," Stevertigo prefers "Anti-Semitism," "Yeshu" "Ehud" and "Holocaust Denial."  What do these things have in common?  They are all issues sensitive to Jews, and Stevertigo has never done an iota of research concerning them.  His is a simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism.  He has never directly insulted any Jews at ikipedia.  But if left to his own devices, slowly, every article here relating to matters of Jewish interest or concern would be corrupted into meaningless garbage.  I do not know if this is because this is his actual objective, or because he knows that it will draw some of the Jewish editors at Wikipedia, and force them to waste their time on the talk pages explaining over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why he is wrong.


 * Please note my excessive use of "over and over and over." It is not a personal attack as such.  It did not violate any content policy.  But can anyone deny that its only effect is to irritate?  This is Stevertigo in essense.  It is why he is a disruptive editor.  That he has gotten away with it for five years is no defense.  In no other kind of violation, would we say that "well, he has been violating NPOV for five years so it must be okay."  The only time editors say "Well he has been doing it for five years so stop complaining" is in the case of disruptive editors.  That is because disruptive editors, by constantly shifting their targets, and by merely disrupting, rather than attacking, are generaly detected only by a small group of editors who for one reason or another (in this case, Jews or non-Jews who care about Jewish related articles) keep encountering this editor.  But we have a policy, WP:DE that describes Stevertigo's MO almost to a tee!  Folks, this is precisely why we have a DE policy.  Generous editors here will say "let's give him anothe chance."  That is because they weren't around for the over a month long "anti-semitism" saga (in which, after Stevertigo started introducing neologisms to support his argument, and created articles for his own neologisms, and was told, No, Steve, you can't create your own word and then create a Wikipdia article about your word, that is a neologism, and then we had to explain to him what the word "neologism" meant, then he went and created an article on neologisms!  I kid you not!  It is amost funny).  But if we let him go this time, in a few nonths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur.  Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it?  Probably me and just a few others.  And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance."  Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors.  Let's use it here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One could take all of that, substitute "Obama" and "liberals" in place of "Jews" and "antisemitism", and we would have an accurate description of Stevertigo's antics that led to Requests for arbitration/Obama articles as well. Sooner or later the ones with the proverbial mops around here have eat the spinach and say "that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!" Tarc (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, most likely you'd get someone to act if you put some examples around, other than just the Ehud one. For instance, can you link me the threads from Anti-Semitism that you're talking about?  Cheers.  lifebaka</i>++ 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I recently attempted to warn Stevertigo on Talk:Holocaust denial that his repetitive arguing was becoming disruptive; he responded by misconstruing what I'd written, wikilawyering over policy, trying to score points, and making some rather odd allusions that I might be in off-wiki contact with other editors there to silence him . I don't intend to second-guess why he does this, but regardless of the reasons the resulting disruption, bad feeling, and general unpleasantness caused by his actions are what matter. I would support removing his editing privileges; although a topic ban would be my first choice, I think his interests are wide-ranging enough that this would be ineffective. Note that because I consider myself marginally involved on Holocaust denial, I don't feel comfortable blocking Stevertigo myself. EyeSerene talk 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I deplore this dogpile. The consensus is against Stevertigo in a number of areas, and he has some controversial views. He also occasionally takes an unfortunate tone with people.  But this AN/I thread is totally unwarranted.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of a "controversial view" he has? The problem I have, and have raised, is not that he has controversial views, but that he is always promoting his own views.  Wikipedia allows controversial views, as long as they are significant and come from notable sources.  Not our own ideas, right? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the "dogpile" conceptualization, S Marshall, I have to disagree about it being "unwarranted," when in fact it's ridiculous. Particularly so when they don't bother to treat my arguments seriously to begin with, and then, instead of dealing with the concepts, they accuse me of "wikilawyering," which is precisely what this report itself actually is.

Note how easy it was to deal with William, who filed this report?

Slrubenstein wrote: "It is true that Arabic is a semetic[sic] language." - Actually, that's not accurate.

-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Wrote some responses. May submit later.


 * Lifebaka asks for some more links. Here are two:.  I must point out that archives from back then are sketchy - some articles were deleted, and then recreated when people had more research; we didn't have the same procedures for keeping records or archives of everything.  In archive 4 of the anti-Semitism talk, Stevertigo makes his argument that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so the article cannot be just a definition of "anti-Semitism."  Fair enough.  On this I agree fully.  Here is where we differ: i think that instead of just defining the term, we need to see what sources exist concerning its history and the sociology of anti-Semitism, or whatever other research there has been, if any.  Steve's approach is to apply his own brand oflogic, and this is used to make his own points (note: what is wrong is not that they are controvesial, but that they are his i.e. an editor's).  In archive 4 he claims that anti-semitism has two meanings: first, it means hatred of Jews.  Second, it is a term used to attack people who disagree with Jews.  Uh, well, you can see how Jews might take exception to this second meaning of "anti-Semitism."  Now, there may well be people who are anti-Zionists yet who are accused of anti-Semitism - this in fact is now the subject of a couple of articles, all backed up by research.  Again, my problem with Steve's argument is that he is relying on his own argument, not research.  In archive 6 he refers to himself, ironically I am sure, as an "anti-Semite."  I really do not believe that he thinks he is an anti-Semite or was confessing to be an anti-Semite, I am merely pointing out that six years ago he was aware that there were other editors who found his views anti-Semitic.  In archive six there is another classic example of his using his own kind of logic, rather than research: anti means opposed to, so anti-Semitism must mean, opposed to Semites, including Arabs.  I and RK and Danny argued strenuously that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred.  RK points out that the person who coined the term meand, "Jew hatred."  And here is the crucial thing: Stevertigo says it does not matter what the inventor of the word meant, words have meanings determined by logic.  As RK points out, the reason that the inventor of the term is important is because there is extensive published historical research on the historical meaning of the term.  Steve's insistence on logic is an insistence on his own beliefs.  I am sorry I could not provide edit difs but it is hard with my connection to go back six years to find edit difs, but these archives are pretty short - I believe they are incomplete - so just search a bit and you will find all the pertinant stuff.  Note: there was a separate archive for anti-Semitism talk, I do not know if there was a separate article or just some talk was being archived back then under a different system.  The point is, those archived talk pages are all blank and I cannot recover the content, so some talk is missing. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lifebaka, here is another link, to an article written entirely by our boy, Stevertigo.. It is pure crap.  Let me be clear: it is not his "controversial views."  It is his bullshit.  I really am waiting for an example of some meaningful contribution to Wikipedia.  Anyway, his article on a neologism that he himself invented is a perfect example of what I have been saying about his MO, just making stuff up and calling it logic to justify why he didn't need to do any research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(continued)

 * Honestly, take a step back. You're accusing a long-term editor of anti-Semitic views and being involved in a plot to corrupt every Jewish-related article on Wikipedia. That I think is bullshit. The link you just provided was from 2003. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided that link because another editor explicitly requested I provide the link ...I explained this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The behavior in Archive 4 is similar, yes. I cannot find any place where Steve states/asserts/implies that antisemitism is hatred of Semites (including various Arab groups) in any of the archives, though this may merely be because the archives are incomplete (there are certainly responses to such a statement, but I'm unsure if they're putting words in his mouth, as it were).  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (To Slrubenstien above) Keep in mind that there are historical concepts of editorship and controversy involved. For example, you now say that "ant-Semitism" has a pejorative meaning, but at the time you rejected the notion altogether - not just that there were no sources. In fact the sources I provided, Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc., were met by you with extremely prejudicial rejection. Hence you've been working with a concept of authorship that defies higher conceptualization, frankly because you think it has no relation to your own. Note for example how you surreptitiously promoted Trinitiarianism as an absolute condition in the Christianity article lede, when in fact there is some variance. I discussed this a bit in my wlog.


 * So, yeah, this has been going on for some time. The important thing though here is for you to build a case, and approach it rationally. This works in any context. For example you and William both above cite a number of diff-links, but you fail to put them into context, and thus fail to make an actual case.


 * And what is the case you are trying to make here? That I be banned? That my arguments, regardless of substance, simply be ignored? That you can continue to simply reject anything I might have to say, even when I do provide sources? (Which I have done on a number of occasions). That you can continue to take my arguments out of context, or otherwise misrepresent them? Do explain.


 * Likewise we will have to deal with some issues that transcend us both, even though Arbcom has some notable impotence in dealing with matters of its own fundamental legislation. One thing that has to go is this notion that RS's dominant modality be a deletionist one. I say so just in case collaboration still has anything to do with this project. Keep in mind that you appear to have no issue of collaborating when it comes to dealing with views which are in agreement with your own conceptualizations. Keep in mind also that because you reject collaboration with those you disagree on the fundamentals, you thus demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what collaboration means, and what it can ultimately do. So I really do want you get your arguments in concise order first, and if that means filing some kind of formal case, I can then refute each.


 * Getting you and Jayjg to do something other than whine about "reliable sources" all day long - particularly when I referred 38 times to just one - would be good for everyone. My sense of things is that if I can't get obstinate persons to deal with just one reliable source, there's no point in me trying to introduce a second. In fact our presence here means to some degree my success in making you deal with just that one source. The rest is just a logical argument that says that "car parts" has something to do with "cars" and to a lesser degree "parts." Your completely irrelevant counterargument, which says essentially that an article like "cheesing" need not at all mention any definition of "cheese", is interesting. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your post opens with a typical example of the source of my frustration. Nowehere have I said "anti-semitism" has a pejorative meaning  My position has not changed since 2003: I believe that people can use the term incorrectly.  My analogy would be to call an appale an orange - it is simply incorrect.  But the word apple continues to refer to a certain kind of fruit.  The term anti-Semite can be incorrectly applied to another person, but it is not pejorative, it is a term that refers to people who, among other things, say pejorative things.  We went over this six years ago.  I continue to see you violating NOR, se,dom using sources and when you do, using them inappropriately, often violating SYNTH, or taking them out of context, all in order to develop your own arguments about a topic, which violates NPOV.  Do I want you banned?  Well, yeah, until you show evidence of being able to work in a collaborative way with people.  Ehud is a perfect examplke because so little seems to be at stake.  You insisted it came from Yehudi and I insisted you provide reliable sources for that; instead you provided your own personal interpretation of Hebrew grammar.  I said you were violating NOR (which you took to be pejorative).  Another user provided the correct etymology and a source, and you had the gall to tell me that I should learn a lesson, and provide sources rather than just argue with people!  When my "argument" with you was my insistence that you provide a source!  If this is not trolling, what is? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I never promoted trinitarianism. You are just making stuff up. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagreement with processes and policy is fair, but even if you are totally correct in your views of RS, V, etc, article space is not the correct place to implement them as folks just want to edit (and collaborate!) within the existing consensual processes and not entertain these "conceptualizations." You mention how long you've been editing here pretty frequently, so I guess you know better than us newbies how wikiprocesses were formed and what you can do to change them. Propose your changes inside the WP process space - a great place for conceptualizing with folks who focused are on that topic. RS's are required because V / NPOV are required. Deviating from current, consensual policy inside of article space is hugely time consuming and disruptive as evidenced by all of the text here and at Talk:Holocaust_denial. Until and unless policy changes, threads that propose material changes to content without reliable sourcing should just be summarily closed until sourcing is provided. Doing this actually supports the process of collaboration as finite resources don't need to be endlessly engaged with discusses content changes that fail (current) policy. cheers, --guyzero | talk 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have to go very far in terms of the policy route than to cite WP:LEDE/WP:LEAD. The fact that much of the substance in that policy's own lede comes from my own conceptualizations about what an article lede needs to do, should not be an obstacle to your continued faith. In short, the substance behind WP:LEDE is higher, relevant conceptualization.


 * Keep in mind, I did provide sources. They simply rejected their relevance. So the extrapolated principle in this case is simple: If a topic is a specialized one, we need to explain why it is so. Also, if the topic likewise uses more general terminology, in some specialized way, then we need to explain why. There is some historiology for the relevant terms, which is not too controversial. However if even simple, concise, and relevant explanations of these specialized ("denial") and subjective ("motive, scale, intent") historiologies are rejected without substantive argument, then this rejection is easily understood to be based not in policy or a reliable interpretation thereof.


 * The common-sense explanation for this type of rejectionism is simply that these explanations give some sense that the specialized terminology is actually a specialized one. And thus they are not rejected because they do not fit policy, but because such explanations defy certain ethnic conceptualizations. This is basically what Slrubenstein was referring to when he said above that 'conceptualization destroys meaning' (paraphrasing). My translation-reparsing of this is something like 'such conceptual explanations can only contradict the ones written down in scrolls.' Now granted, these are "reliable scrolls" to be certain. Most of them anyway. But these have no meaning at all here if no efforts are made to unroll them, read them to people, and gain new understanding from their unconstrained resonance.


 * I have always known how to express myself with "sensitiv[ity]," as Slrubenstein calls it. That I often do not is simply a requirement of the age, an instrument of the times, a necessity of the context, and due in no small measure to the lack of good faith that I have grown accustomed to dealing with. I am always pleased, however, to find I am not right in this regard. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you really responded to anything guyzero said, nor have you given a reason why we should be doing anything other than what he's suggested. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "deal with William". Oh dear, Steve, there's this thing called real life, which I, judging by your elaborate responses, have to be a part of more frequently than you. I do not have the time or interest to appease your wikilawyering. Incidentally, I have abolutely no qualms about the thread title being changed, and even offer an apology for the impression it falsely/inadvertently suggested.


 * Consequently, this is the first time I've checked this thread since my comment 2 days ago. I'd just like comment on one thing: on Wikipedia, it's always been my intention to keep controversial articles, such as Holocaust denial, as they should be, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Indeed, I was selected - and supported unanimously - to be an administrator largely on that basis. The fact that all hell breaks loose when someone leaves a few daft opposes on requests for adminship, yet the general response to someone who - on top of all the disruptive editing - systematically rejects core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR and (by his own admission) cherry-picks material to push his agenda on an encyclopedia page viewed thousands of times a month is largely "uh, nothing to see here, move on", in my opinion, encompasses everything that is wrong with Wikipedia if this individual is not sanctioned in some manner. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You could have picked a far better example, Steve. Cheesing has absolutely nothing to do with cheese, unless one has a very strange definition of cheese.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think.. anyone reading this no doubt thinks we are all talking past each other. (Note, I wanted to keep this extremely short, but I failed in that regard): WilliamH above, just to take one example of this 'talking past each other,' references my example of an argument, but he misses the point behind it entirely that it represented Slrubenstein's actual argument, simply putting into a rather absurd reformulation. Slrubenstein's argument is certainly valid in cases like the example I used ("cheesing") which are entirely idiomatic and unrelated to their apparent core terminology. In cases like this one (Holocaust and Holocaust denial) where the terms are entirely related, his argument is so utterly irrelevant that it constitutes a demonstration of a deeper capacity on his part for fallacious argumentation.


 * Slrubenstein and Jayjg have echoed this same argument several times, stating essentially that "Holocaust denial" is so far removed from the term "The Holocaust" that no mention of the latter is required in the former. The underlined portion is oversimplified, but these are the essentials of his argument. The underlined portion can be augmented with something like matters of subjectivity in its definition.


 * The background is straightforward: term "The Holocaust" first split off from its apparent original definition of "all Nazi murders," and became used to refer exclusively to the mass-murder of Jews alone sometime during the 1960s. That's according to the Columbia Guide. Naturally, there has been a concerted effort to promote an entirely Jewish definition of "The Holocaust," to the rejection of several million other victims. There are of course explanations for this selectivity, and these invariably employ concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (Columbia Guide). The issue then is an editorial one which can be broken down into two basic counterarguments of somewhat differing validity. We've seen examples of each. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * sigh* this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Now I have to go and explain that I never suggested that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Holocaust.  Nor have I ever suggested that the Holocaust refers only to the genocide of Jews.  In fact, far from it.  But by misrepresenting me and the argument, I have no choice but either to disengage (and people will have an unfair representation of me) or repeat what I have said many times ... thus ... further ... delaying ... any ... improvement ... on ... the ... article ...  We can go back and forth cand back and forth and back and forth and just let SV continue to use Wikipedia like his own little ball of yarn.  I'd rather we didn't. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, well at least you're not mad. (Or else not showing any outward signs thereof). Nice talking with you. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS (Slrubenstein): BTW, Salvation needs reworking to get it somewhere back to neutrality. Its upfront usage of "..from eternal damnation" is just the start of it. Please have a look, if you're not busy. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think either one of you are understanding each other. At all. I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations. I think if people can know for sure what the other side wants, and not respond to what they assume the other side is saying, this issue can be resolved a lot easier. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding our understanding, to a certain extent. Keep in mind we have been crossing paths for seven years. In any case It's not really about what I want to do, or what Slrubenstein wants me not to do, but how you and others can help us by sorting out the arguments and giving us your input. So I appreciate the questions.

As far as the article issues go, my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism, and necessary to move forward in the direction of dealing objectively with issues of terminology and etymology, as well as comprehension, which I feel is an essential dimension within the whole sad topic. As I understand them, Slrubenstein presents two main arguments for dis-inclusion: The first one (m1) is valid only in unrelated contexts wherein a pair of terms might only have a superficial relation, and the second (m2) is implied based on his various expressed concerns for how his own subjective ethnic lens relates to the article/concept. His arguments related to sources are likewise twofold: The first (s1) that I have not provided any sources at all is nullified by my presentation of a very ample and relevant one (Columbia Guide). His second argument (s1) alleges the irrelevance of the above source in the current context - an argument that itself rests circularly on one of his main arguments (m1).

With regard to what do I want in general (which is the other way I interpreted your questions), it's about how to formalize and broaden what I do, which is to turn an articulate wreck into a clear, concise, and conceptual statement of the subject. With regard to Slrubenstein (since we are talking about what the other is supposed to be doing), I'd like to see him transform his acuity for detail from its current expression as a modality of exclusive expertise, into a helpful and outgoing movement based on the assisted procurement of citations and the qualitative adjudication of sources. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, Steve, if I had embraced the part of anthropology that had embraced postModernism, I'm sure that I would understand what you had just written. But, unfortunately, I embraced something much more wholesome. I like User:A little insignificant's suggestion: "I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations." Not much fun, maybe, but helpful... --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anthon. And Steve, if I'm getting this right, all you want to do is... include a mention that the term "Anti-semitism" can mean different things? A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, i think it's the different meanings of the "holocaust" that steve wants to note. untwirl (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Thanks for correcting me. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to A little insignificant: I would like Stevertigo to stop filling up talk pages with obtuse wordy rambles that express his own views, but no research. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I agree- Stevertigo tends to write using a lot of very long paragraphs and very impressive words. Steve, I don't mean to criticize your writing style or to deny the importance of your comments, but such huge posts are daunting to their readers, and people trying to communicate with you cannot do so easily. They end up confused and lost and misunderstanding your points. If you want to be able to communicate better with people you need to address those issues. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 20:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, (sorry if I am now making it two sentences with specific regard to Holocaust Denial, my complaint is: Stevertigo consistenly ignores the several other editors who have been working on the article, because he responds to any one else's comment with one of these long ponderous and obtude reflections on his own thoughts, rather than ever directly engaging other editors. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (sigh) The point (again) is to include some language in the lede of the Holocaust denial article that explicitly states something like 'while there is variance in the scope of the term "The Holocaust," its meaning in the context of "Holocaust denial" is limited to the Jewish definition, and the coined purpose of the term is to refer to anti-Semitic WWII revisionism and to nothing else.. for other interpretative issues related to the Holocaust, see Holocaust comprehension.' 


 * I am not happy with the fact that people here apparently can't deal with three simple paragraphs: 1) an introduction and expression of gratitude to ALI, 2) a direct response ("my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism"), and 3) a follow-up dealing with my hopes for the future. Granted the information density in my expressions is high, still I don't see why a secondary or ternary read wouldn't be sufficient for comprehension. If comprehension is not achievable, I don't see what business you people have in trying to make content decisions or activity complaints about me, what I advocate, what I write, or what I do - whatever these may be.


 * SLR, I empathize and understand your concerns. Still I feel that you are being disingenuous about your criticisms, your motives, your degrees of approach, and your willingness to be reasonable. I have not ignored you or anyone else, and I have been responsive to every inquiry, if not compliant with every unreasonable request. The only issue is that your side now needs to concede that your arguments (which I listed in my above reply) are less substantial than mine, if not altogether flawed and based in disingenuous complaint-ism. I humbly suggest you put your energies toward dealing with the arguments, rather than making complaints which are neither true, nor accurate enough to be close. Do you agree to this request? If not, then please file a formal complaint. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, someone else filed the complaint, which is why we are here.

Now, you mention "Holocaust comprehension" but I see no link and can't find such an article. Folks, if you are still confused as to the crux of the issue, here it is: Stevertigo has flooded the Holocaust denial talk page with piles and piles of his obtuse circular prose all to promote this idea of a new article (Holocaust comrehension) that would be based on: .... no, no, not other sources, but on Stevertigo's own views. This is just what I meant when I replied to A little insignificant's request for one sentence: I want Stevertigo to stop pushing his POV, especially his proposal to create new articles based on his POV rather than verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider Steven that the premise by which this thread was started was almost instantly rejected by uninvolved people as an ongoing discussion - not a case of disruptive editing. I also made it clear that WilliamH's comment to these people was out of placem and this thread should have stopped there. But then you chimed in and kept it going - so its your matzah ball now.


 * As far as your 'piles and piles of obtuse circular prose' characterization (apparently your only remaining point), I'm certain that the above admins don't read it that way either. I would characterize the "piles and piles" as my attempts at explaining my argument to you, unsuccessful only because I've had to deal with "obtuse" rejections from you and Jayjg, "circular" not as in your objections/arguments, rather as in 'having to repeat myself,' "prose" is no doubt an underhanded compliment of some sort. Again, anyone can read WP:LEDE for the supporting policy, the Columbia Guide to The Holocaust for the supporting source, and my own "piles and piles" of talk page comments for the argumentation.


 * You mention "Holocaust comprehension." Great. Finally a question about a substantive idea. There is no article yet, because we have not before considered the concept. In fact my entire foray into this whole awful topic began with my post here, which explained my reasons for an umbrella context, within the general field. Is this original research? Not if you consider all of the dimensions outside of anti-Semitism. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll just be back in a few month anyways, when User:Stevertigo/Socialism fallacy, another unsourced opinion piece makes its way into article space. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you won't. What is going to happen is that you are going to file a formal complaint against me within the week. I will deal with your "issues" regarding me and my editing there. If you don't formalize your problems, and still persist in annoying me with your incessant hebetudinousness, I'll make you do more than just search a dictionary. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way is Tarc incessantly lethargic or dull? Or were you hoping someone would accuse you of using the derogatory word for a Jew just so you could say "fooled ya!" with a wink?  No, Steve, you haven't fooled us at all.  Some people maybe, but not all of us. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Steven, if you're not going to just come out of the anxiety closet and call me what they do at the Jewish Justice League meetings, then what's the point? (BTW congrats on your acceptance. Say hi to Uncle Leo for me). -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, eThreats don't become you. Stalking?  Please.  You have a redlink under "stuff to do" on your user page, and it was hardly a leap to assume you had a draft of such in userspace.  I took a look at it and noted that it seems just as problematic as your last project turned out to be. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. YAWN. - Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo part 3
To get back to the point, the issue raised, and still unresolved, is Stevertigo's filling articles with his own unique ideas, combined with his filling article Talk: pages with superficially erudite but actually obtuse and obscure argumentation. It's not that people "disagree with his views", it's that Wikipedia is not the place for them. Note, for example, his recent comment above, which I'll quote in its entirety: "talk" As far as Stevertigo is concerned, the only "substantive" issue has finally come up; what should we do about that Holocaust comprehension article he wants to write. Not that he has any sources that even discuss the concept; of course not! Stevertigo has an idea in his head, therefore Wikipedia should have an article on his idea. He waves away any notion that his recent brainstorm might be Original Research, not by linking to WP:NOT, but instead linking to WP:CONCEPT, an essay written by Stevertigo himself! Personal, idiosyncratic viewpoints are fine for a blog, but they don't belong in encyclopedia, nor should they be used to waste peoples time on article Talk pages. This disruptive behavior of his needs to stop, and it doesn't appear discussion of the issue is actually making any impression on him. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what Steve attempted to do on a couple of occasions with Obama-related articles as well; edit war, fail, write/propose brand-new WP:OR-tinged articles, fail, create new editing guidelines or edit war on existing ones to support his arguments, rinse, repeat. Seriously; desysopped several years ago, sanctioned by ArbCom just 3 months ago, numerous AN/Is...where does one go from here to deal with such a dug-in, serial disruptor? Tarc (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Full stop. Is this the triggering edit?--Tznkai (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further thought: This thread is very long, and difficult to read. A brief and neutral summary would be a great help. The absence of one will make it more likely for an administrator, to assume wide misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground which would be unfortunate.--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the summary: Stevertigo completely ignores WP:NOR and WP:V, and, when opposed, edit-wars to keep his own original research in articles and/or fills Talk: pages with thousands of words of pointless, reference-free, non policy-related argumentation. This is not about any specific edit, or any specific article; not about Obama, or antisemitism, or Holocaust denial, or his personal essays in Wikipedia space. It is about the behavior Stevertigo displays in each of these areas, and many more. Please read my previous comment above. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've begun to read through all of this, but it quite frankly could take me a long while that I'd rather be spending doing other things. Anything else really. In the meantime, I'd like to make a global reminder that patient explaining is superior to the alternatives, that we've already had an ugly case or two about this, and that terms like antisemitism should be used with care.--Tznkai (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick review: Tznkai asked for a stop to the chatter and an answer to the context: "Is this the triggering edit?" Jayjg said simply "No."

I know that supposedly no one is as long winded as I am, but even Jayjg is never this terse - at least in the five years I've known him online. Why the terseness? ''Is it because he lacks another explanation? Is it because he's interpreting "triggering" in a slippery sort of way? Is it because its not true, but by not offering any further explanation, he thinks people are stupid enough to not notice that he's playing a little game of omission, and thus probably thinks he can just sort of back out of it if pressed?''

The correct answer was "yes." After all I made no other edit to the article, except for adding the words "and etymology" to the "terminology" section header. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayjg provided a supeb summary of the matter at 00:06 23 September. Tznkai writes, "I've begun to read through all of this, but it quite frankly could take me a long while that I'd rather be spending doing other things."  To add my own two cents to Jayjg's concise summary: Tznkai, your complaint is precisely our complaint about what happens whenever Stevetigo starts pushing his point of view on the talk page of an article.  Other editors must devote a lot of time to reading through all of his obtuse and uninformed rambling, which takes time away from other discussions that could really improve the article.  That is what makes him a disruptive editor.  I hope Tznkai this meets your standards for brevity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion is just going in circles. Neither Tznkai or I really understand it, despite what we're trying to do to resolve it. And Steve's accusatory clichés (such as the one above) are just getting annoying. Quote, "Is it because he lacks another explanation? Does he think people are stupid enough not to notice he's playing a little game of omission..." Endquote.


 * This whole thread makes me think of a large, nearly-empty courtroom, with Slrubenstein as the opposition and Stevertigo the defendant. Slrubenstein keeps coughing and dropping his notes, and while it's clear that Steve has done something wrong, Slrubenstein is having trouble deciding what to prosecute him for. As Jayjg, Tarc and others offer their opinion, Stevertigo interrupts them with triumphant cries of "You haven't got a leg to stand on!" and other dramatic accusations. I'm sure this is a complete misrepresentation on my part, but whatever. This will be my final comment here, as I tire of this discussion and I don't understand it.


 * Bottom line, Steve, other editors have issues with your behavior. No matter where this discussion goes, your gonna have to address those issues if you want to avoid another scenario like this. Victory here lies not in winning the argument, but in solving the problem. For everybody. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A little insignificant, what do you mean by having trouble what to prosecute for, coughing, and dropping my notes? You asked us for a one sentence summary - I offered one on 23:16, 20 September 2009  and another at 00:05, 22 September 2009.  Those two sentences are it, that's the complaint.  These two sentences are not contradictory, they fit together quite well.  Of course they are abrupt - what do you expect when yo are the one asking for a one sentence summary?  So now I really am confused: what more do you want?  Why do you think I can't make a decisin?  I decided to respond to your request, and I summarized very concisely my complaint.  Where is my indecision, please? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did say it was a complete misrepresentation, and it was badly written at that :) I was trying to refer to the fact that the topic seemed to juggle between Steve's writing, the whole Holocaust denial issue, his useage of WP:CONCEPT, etc. My characterization of you was wrong, likely more than that of everyone else. Sorry about that. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Okay: Holocaust Denial is simply the most recent example of an article where the problem comes up.  The problem has to do with making arguments for changes that keep going in circles on the talk pages of such articles.  The arguments keep going in circules because he wants to inject his own POV, and not do source-based research.  The Concepts essay is his attempt to justify his approach, which, for the prosecution, is just further evidence of his desire to impose his own POV through OR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I get it now. Thanks! A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ANI wrote (lack of unnecessary emphasis mine): "Bottom line, Steve, other editors have issues with your behavior. No matter where this discussion goes, your gonna have to address those issues if you want to avoid another scenario like this. Victory here lies not in winning the argument, but in solving the problem." - Ill take all the victories I can get. I also appreciate your trying to be equal with  the  characterizations. I found that the truer ones tended to be funnier. ;-) I'm lacking a proper keyboard so Ill leave it there for now.  Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I'm lacking the necessary wisdom and I think the editors here may lack the willingness to avoid murdering a baby, but my thoughts are as follows: Antisemitism, new-antisemtism especially, and Holocaust denial seem to fit suitably under the wide topic of the Arab-Isreali conflict. I am specifically not employing enforcement or personalized warnings at this time because I feel that it would be over the top. I am however, disappointed at the clear misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, because this conflict has a very personal character to it. I am cautioning editors broadly to be careful with their words, accusations of bad faith and statements like "simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism" do nothing to improve the quality of the wiki. Likewise, responding with long essays and refusing to acknowledge legitimate concerns about the verifiability of statements is not helpful. Reasonable disagreement must be the corner stone of what we do around here, and I for one, am sick and tired of seeing policy used as bludgeon as opposed to an explanation.
 * In summation: Steve, you have a point about the necessity of good writing, but you need to reign it in. Everyone else, you also need to reign it in as well. I highly recommend recruiting editors from other Wikiprojects who will give a fresh view on the topic. --Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tznkai, I'm a bit disappointed here. This has nothing to do with antisemitism or Holocaust denial, much less New antisemitism. Nor does it have anything to do with the I-P conflict; not sure how that managed to rear its head in this conversation. Stevertigo's actions at the Holocaust denial article (which, by the way, were opposed by at least 5 other editors) are merely a symptom of a broader issue. Please review my comments of 01:16, 16 September 2009, which show an identical pattern at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, an article in which none of the people here (aside from Stevertigo) were involved. This is not a "battle" about content, but rather solely about exactly what I stated above; Stevertigo's refusal to acknowledge that WP:V and WP:NOR are critical policies, rather than optional essays. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in after change conflict with SlimVirgin): Tznkai wrote: "Sigh. I'm lacking the necessary wisdom and I think the editors here may lack the willingness to avoid murdering a baby" - Hm. Keep in mind that Solomon (Shlomo) had no intention of chopping an innocent child in half. (Yes, the common term "innocent child" is redundant). That you likewise have no such proclivity is rooted the same kind of wisdom.

Tzkai wrote: "but my thoughts are as follows: Antisemitism, new-antisemtism especially, and Holocaust denial seem to fit suitably under the wide topic of the Arab-Isreali conflict." - You won' find anyone agreeing with you there. The Arab Israeli conflict is quite recent. Anti-Semitism, as Slrubenstein and Jayjg will testify, goes back thousands of years. The issue with anti-Semitism as the exclusive context for Holocaust denial is fine, provided there is no other kind (which seems to be the case), and provided that the terminology and etymology are explained (which seems not to be the case). -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have only glanced through the above, because it's an awful lot to read, but if I could just make one suggestion to Stevertigo. The problem, as I see it, is original research, both in articles and on talk. If you could use reliable sources for any point you want to make, both in articles and on talk, and stick very closely to what the sources are saying, that would go a long way to reducing the problems. With the Holocaust denial issue, for example, if you want to say something about it not being necessarily antisemitic&mdash;because denying the Holocaust might involve denying aspects of it not related to Jews&mdash; find a source for that, either a high quality newspaper article, or better still an academic paper or book. And if you want that point in the lead, find several good sources that support it. I think that's all anyone is asking. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good advice, reasonably stated.--Tznkai (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And that's all that people here were asking for from Stevertigo. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the helpful tone, SV. On the matter of sources, I have "provided" one - the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust - which in fact was already the first citation in the article. The real issue is not "providing sources," but referencing them accurately. The reference to the CGH as a source for a definition of the Holocaust cannot be so simplistic and ethnically focused as it currently is used in the HD article, while the source itself is rather sophisticated and universal - in fact calling the exclusively Jewish definition "essentially Judeocentric" and based variously on concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (ie. subjectivity). So while I am referencing the source correctly, they are not. That's the real issue here. Sure they can try to replace the CGH now, just to sort of fit the concept to their definition, but I will most certainly not abide by that kind of academic dishonesty - even here on Wikipedia. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is where the NOR policy kicks in. A source about "Holocaust denial" isn't a source on the meaning of "Holocaust," followed by a source on the meaning of "denial." To approach it that way is a violation of the policy, specifically WP:SYN. It leads to you finding a source that includes non-Jewish victims in the definition of Holocaust, which in turn leads you to say "Holocaust denial" isn't necessarily antisemitic, because here's a source defining the Holocaust to include the Roma, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on. That's the kind of research that the NOR disallows.


 * The source needs to be on "Holocaust denial" itself, which is a distinct concept that's widely discussed by scholarly and other sources. How the Holocaust is defined is not necessarily related to how "Holocaust denial" is defined. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not the definition of "Holocaust denial," but the definition of "The Holocaust" that the "Holocaust denial" article uses. Yours is the same argument they give, and its a rather disingenuous one - one that obtusely mischaracterizes my argument as advocating a redefinition of HD (which I am not doing). The term "HD" rests entirely on a limited definition of "H," that's all my point has been. And in that context the source that deals with "H" is sufficient.

Likewise this argument about specialized sources for specialized topics is a bit counter to our open source/free culture philosophy that rejects proprietary ownership of topics. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Note, Jayjg's insert/comment came after mine - moved below. Please don't use disruptive inserts.


 * Which is exactly the point people made to Stevertigo, over and over and over, on Talk:Holocaust denial. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec, reply to Stevertigo) I think you are right that the definition of "Holocaust denial" rests on a limited definition of "Holocaust." But the point here is that you must find a reliable source who makes that argument. You're not allowed to make it yourself. Or you could be very clear up front: "Holocaust denial is defined as X, based on a description of the Holocaust as the genocide of six million Jews." That would be fair enough, if carefully written and sourced. As Wikipedians, we almost play the role of stenographers. Our job is to find the good sources on the topic of the article, and add what they say, using our own words. We are not supposed to stray from what they say, or combine the sources in a way that leads to new claims. So, in the article about the Holocaust, you can cite the source you're referring to above. But in the article about Holocaust denial, you must use sources that are writing about the concept of "Holocaust denial" specifically. You can't, as a Wikipedian, set out to deduce what Holocaust denial is. You are only allowed to say, "This is what source X says it is." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim wrote: "I think you are right that the definition of "Holocaust denial" rests on a limited definition of "Holocaust."" - No, its not important that I am "right," or that you agree with me (at least that's what you seem to be saying). What's important is that the definition of "The Holocaust" has variance, and that all subordinate topics that use the term take a few words to define which meaning of the term they are using and why.

Slim wrote: "But the point here is that you must find a reliable source who makes that argument." - I am not making an "argument" about content - simply the reliable use of sources. (Note the distinction from the common term '[selecting] "reliable" sources').

The CGH says there is variance, so the onus is on your side to explain not just why the limited definition is used in the context of discussing HD, but why you suggest that HD need not explain its subjective, ethnic, limited usage of H. That's not an argument. That's a requirement of good, ethical editing. Indeed, you seem to agree with me that the Columbia Guide is a sufficient source for "The Holocaust" - not just in articles specifically about "The Holocaust," but in other articles as well. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has asserted that it's improper to state that Holocaust denial uses a certain definition of the Holocaust rather than others. Indeed, I find it unlikely that many would object to such an explicit statement, as it isn't worth disputing.  What is being asserted is that the definition of "the Holocaust" doesn't lead directly to the definition of "Holocaust denial", as the latter term was coined to refer only to a specific type of denial of events relating to the Holocaust, and you appear to be arguing differently in many places.  If this is just a misunderstanding, say so, make some suggestions on Talk:Holocaust denial about including a specific phrase like the one you mentioned a ways above, and it should all be good.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I really am living in an XKCD cartoon. 1) Yes, I am not advocating for a change in scope for the HD concept, just an more expansive explanation of its etymology. 2) Part of that etymology no doubt rests on the definition of "H" as used in the "HD" article. 3) "and it should all be good" just ain't gonna cut it. People have been prodding me incessantly with their disingenuous nonsensical objections for weeks now. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec; reply to Stevertigo) I spent a few minutes on Google books to see if I could address your concerns. The following, by two historians, is the kind of source we need for this discussion, because it defines the Holocaust via a discussion of Holocaust denial. That avoids all the NOR pitfalls: "When historians talk about the 'Holocaust,' what they mean on the most general level is that about six million Jews were killed in an intentional and systematic fashion by the Nazis using a number of different means, including gas chambers. According to this widely accepted definition of the Holocaust, so-called Holocaust revisionists are in effect denying the Holocaust, since they also deny its three key components: the killing of six million, gas chambers, and intentionality' (Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?. University of California Press, 2009, p. xv)." There you have your basic definitions of Holocaust and Holocaust denial, discussed within the context of the article's topic, thereby avoiding OR. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But Slim, the "Holocaust denial" article already does have a source for its definition of The Holocaust, and its a great one. It's called "The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust." Now, are you saying you just want to replace that source with a different one, just to fit a preexisting point of view? Wouldn't that violate certain journalistic/encyclopedic ethics? Hm? -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the definition Slim's provided above agrees in substance with the definition that's currently sourced to the CGH -- what's the problem? The current lead at Holocaust denial is clear, concise, and to the point; as far as I can tell, the lead you seem to be proposing is not clear, not concise, and does nothing but confuse the point. Certainly a 416-page book will be able to go into more detail on the subject than a wiki article's lead section, but we simply cannot duplicate that depth of understanding in a paragraph or two. I see a lot of hot air flying around, and not much that actually contributes to progress. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No it does not go into anywhere near as much detail, nor is it as "reliable" as the more objective source - at least that's how I define "reliability." I won't get into dealing with this new, supposedly better source, until SV, you, or someone can explain why the CGH needs replacing - which is essence of the apparent new argument. And replacing it with what? With something that Slim found after a five-minute book search? With something specifically written from an ethnic point of view?


 * Again, I didn't select the CGH source. I simply read what it actually said, and want it (as with all our sources) used accurately - and not all 416 pages of it - just one. More so I need to destroy this unethical notion that simply playing bait and switch or a shell game with "reliable" sources will solve the issue. Thanks for your input anyway, Luna Santin. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, the particular quote Slim provided goes into more detail than the particular quote that's being used in the HD article, and more to the point, you haven't explained any way in which they disagree, just now, other than to repeatedly claim that they do. I asked you "what's the problem?" -- a question I think quite a few editors have asked you, recently, and one which you seem loathe to answer directly. What, specifically, does your proposed lead add to the article, aside from word count and confusion? – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this thread is still continuing. The Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, covers a lot of things. For example, the President of Iran, regularly rants about Zionists, and last I heard was a purported holocaust denier. These things occupy the same head space, and certainly fall within administrator discretion. I see a wide ranging content dispute spilling throughout multiple pages, despite two cases that have sought to contain it. While in this particular instance we have an argument ostensibly about writing quality and verifiability, it does not take a scholar to notice some irritating aspects of this melodrama, including editors who should know better, and other editors who shouldn't even be editing. It is a self evident principle that if an administrator interferes, (s)he should follow the dispute as far and as deep as it goes, and deal with disruption as it is found. My very short amount of digging has brought me a lot of concern. It should have been obvious from my above statements not only am I personally irritated with the lot of you, but you've all violated relevant Wikipedia conduct policies in such a way that threatens to damage the content. I've tried pleading, and I am now resorting to directives.
 * Steve: you will write in 436 words or less (and I recommend less) what specific change you want to one article, and why it should be so. You will provide links to established policies and sources as appropriate. You will propose this change on the appropriate article of your choice. If you do not do this, you will drop this entire discussion immediately and remove yourself from the topic, broadly construed.
 * Everyone who has been arguing with Steve: You will respond calmly, in equally concise statements. If you cannot come to a compromise with Steve, quickly, you will leave it alone and someone will request an article RfC, or you will exit the topic as well, roadly construed.
 * Globally: Sloppy insinuations of antisemitism, accusations of bad faith, and other conduct improprieties are unacceptable. I know middle school students who can comport themselves better.
 * Reminder: I have a number of tools in my tool box, including two arbitration cases, a block button and a policy I hold dear. I may be totally off base here, but I don't think I am. Lets not find out.
 * Further reminder: I am just one administrator, and you can always appeal to the community or another admin who can deal with this better. But my advice on that is, no one wants to read a thread of this length.

Questions?--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No questions. 1) I appreciate your input. 2) Note that you yourself are likewise adding to this thread. 3) Again the AIC is not the proper context. See . Anti-Semitism is a context within both ethnic persecution and Jewish history - can't get too much broader than that. I do appreciate trying to keep things in the scope of current events, but sadly people don't always lose themselves in the present. 5) I'm taking a break. I was waiting for SlimVirgin to respond to my point, and its conceivable that she or someone else will now use your wordy interjection as a kind of obfuscation/distraction to base further attacks. 6) Again, I appreciate your attempts at being fair and objective, but I sense (and no doubt do others) that you cannot do the job alone. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) PS: 7) I've already stated several times in this thread and on the article talk "what specific change [I] want to one article, and why it should be so." 8) I casually reject anyone's notion that I should confine myself to only 200 words, particularly when such is supposedly supposed to include both 'specific proposed changes' and 'rationale.' (Your own comment employs 436 words). 9) I've already stated several times in this thread and on the article talk "what specific change [I] want to one article, and why it should be so." -SV
 * Revised accordingly. The reason behind this I hoped was self evident: I am trying to shoe horn you all into doing it correctly once, and hoping it gets better from there. Now please, go and do it, this one time, and link to the appropriate place. ANI is not the proper venue for content disputes, and the alternative is I reweigh the considerable evidence of your refusal to comply to basic editing requirements.--Tznkai (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Please don't threaten me. a) It belies your sincere attempts at meditation, and b) I'm not in the mood for it. 2) Again, see, , , and for the points. - Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For many people here, the problem is Severtigo's behavior at Holocaust Denial. For me, the problem is a long-term pattern in Stevertigo's behavior at talk pages, regardless of the topic.  Here we have another example of Stevertigo's MO in this pattern: Tznkai makes a set of requests to all parties in an attempt to resolve the conflict, and just at that moment, Stevertigo decides he is going to take a rest from the matter.  I tell you: it does not matter what the conflict, this is always part of Stevertigo's pattern.  Once it is clear no one is following Tznkai's suggestions, Stevertigo will come back.


 * To those, like Tznkai, who wish to resolve the dispute at Holocauset Denial, I think I can help with an accurate summary inlude a summary of Stevertigo's position.
 * Stevertigo's view Other editors have defined "Holocaust Denial" to mean aruments that the Nazis and their allies did not commit genocide against Jews during WWII.  "Holoocaust Denial" is a concept, consisting of two core concepts: "Holocaust" and "Denial."  "Denial" means to negate or argue against.  "Holocaust" actually means several things, including the genocide against Roma (Gypsies) (source: Columbia Guide to the Holocaust). Therefore, editors who claim that Holocaust Denial is a rejection of the genocide against the Jews are either (1) wrong, Holocaust denial means denying the Holocaust against Roma too, or (2) are themselves guily of denying the Hoolocaust against Roma.
 * Everyone else's view Stevertigo is making two mistakes.  First, "Holocaust Deial" for purposes of Wikipedia should not be treated as a concept built up out of two other concepts.  It should be treated as one concept, and its meaning is whatever meaning verifiable sources give to the phrase "Holocaust Denial."  (In a very crude example, I pointed out that you will not learn the meaning of "blow job" by looking up the definition of "blow," and then looking up the definition of "job" and putting the two definitions together).  Second, it is a violation of NOR to use the Columbia Guide for information about "the Holocaust" and thn use that to make claims about Holocaust Denial.  NOR prohipis synthesis, taking diferent ideas from different sources and combining them.  You cannot take any source on "the Holocaust" and then combine it with material from another source to make claims about "Holocuast Denial."  You need sources that are explicitly about "Holocaust Denial" to make claims about Holocaust Denial.
 * This argument has been going on, going in circles, building up mounds of mush, for weeks now but as far as i can tell this is the argument at Holocaust Denial. I further add my own view of Stevertigo's reasons for refusing to back down: his "conceptual method" means he can do almost all his research with a dictionary.  It spares him the chore of going to a library to read a book.  I know Jayjg and Slim Virgin have recently gone through FA processes and both of them can attest to the importance, in writing good WP articles, of going to libraries and finding books and journal articles on a topic.  Stevertigo wants to stick to the dictionary and his own "common sense."  But, if you will keep my blowjob example in mind, you can understand how sometimes this leads him to argue views that are considered simply absurd by reliable sources for significant views.  But that never stops him. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein's attempts at restating my argument are as inaccurate as they are disingenuous, and his own arguments condense down to simply promoting an unethical selectivity of sources to suit a particular POV - in addition to rehashing his 'blow job fallacy' / "cheesing" argument again. Does anyone else have any thoughts about Slrubenstein's comments? -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Le mediation terrible

 * For the record, I'm a terrible mediator, and I have not claimed to be one. I am in fact, attempting to manage a dispute, but alas I appear to have failed. I am going to give you one of two options, a topic ban for six months from Judaism related articles, talk pages, and project pages, broadly construed, or a two week block for your constant misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, and your apparent refusal to abide by core content policies, disruption and excessive tendentiousness. Either choice can be appealed through normal channels.--Tznkai (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recently arbcom has expressed mixed feelings as to whether whether administrators have the authority to issue page or topic bans. As an admin, you're much safer with the block. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We can conceptually think of this as me blocking Steve, and then offering an unblock in exchange for a topic ban, rather than one imposed outright, without cluttering up the block logs. If it is overturned on procedural grounds, so be it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently this discussion is about whether or not Stevertigo is a disruptive editor according to Disruptive editing. Tsnkai, Since you are about to take action because you have apparently judged that Stevertigo is a disruptive editor, could you give the excerpt of Disruptive editing that Stevertigo has violated, along with supporting diffs? This would be a good summary of the case against that editor, which is presumably the rationale for your imminent decision. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Didn't see your last message before I posted the above and I didn't get an edit conflict error message. Did you already take action? If so, the excerpt and diffs would still be illuminating. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Sure.

Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of
 * disrupting progress toward improving an article, or
 * disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.
 * Evidence has emerged that Stevevirgo has, with unjustifiable and excessive stubbornness) refused to supply reliable sources in order to verify changes to articles. In fact, Stevevirgo has declined both invitation and instruction to contain content disputes on article talk pages when asked, and has shown himself more interested in taking potshots at other editors than moving forward on creating good content. The most troubling behavior I just described has been shown on this very thread. This is a misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground --Tznkai (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: An example of original research. See also Talk:Holocaust denial. --Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, can I get something clarified? When I looked at that part of WP:Disrupt before you excerpted it, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits..." I thought it was referring to edits of the article, rather than discussion on the talk page. Did I have the wrong impression? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been under the impression that disruptive editing can take place off of article space, if it is part of the overall behavior that causes problems with content. (We also need to include content relevant templates and such)--Tznkai (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that an editor can be disruptive on a talk page. Perhaps that aspect should be made more clear at WP:Disrupt. But in general, one has to be careful to distinguish between a persistent editor with a reasonable minority opinion on the talk page and a disruptive editor. This seems difficult.


 * Regarding article edits, the task of identifying a disruptive editor may be easier. For example, if an editor repeatedly introduces unsourced material, and a source is requested from the editor each time, with no source being supplied. Then those diffs would be good and simple evidence of disruptive editing. Perhaps this is the type of case against Stevertigo? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob, its those kinds of plain and straight questions that make some people here upset (though apparently I am supposed to answer the exact same question ad infinitum). Tznkai, I didn't know that you were Arbcom. Apparently you claim here to be acting in some official capacity?  Why did you not state upfront that you were Arbcom, and that you were here on some fact-finding/troll-stomping mission? (Try template:Arbsig for such times). Have you been unsuccessful in the former? (You've stated several times now that you have been confused by all of the discussion/arguments). Will your success at the latter be a kind of adequate compensation?
 * I've said before several times that I appreciate your moderate/even-handed tenor here. I don't understand your sudden change of tone, your reasons for singling me out in this, and whatever authority you claim to use to block me for simply trying to engage people in discussion. If this appreciation was misplaced, and you came here under false pretenses, or else are acting under some invisible consultation/authority, then I will deal with whatever the actual forces at work here are.
 * Lastly, forgive me for not answering your question, but it was the exact same one that I've answered several times before, and I have been getting tired of this "dogpile" - as one admin above called it. It's clear that the other side is now promoting an unethical interpretation of "reliable sources," and I simply expected someone objective to see this. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an Arbitrator, thank goodness. (by the way, I've nominated steve's new template via MfD for deletion) I am an administrator, which means, broadly, that my duties include preventing disruption of the Wiki, and with the correct application of common sense and policy, I can do things, including block people in an effort to make that happen. Which I have now elected to do. I am creating a section for review right now as well.--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tznkai, for blocking Stevertigo. Since I first encountered him in April 2009 at Talk:Perfect crime, I have found him to be implacably wedded to the idea that original research is sufficient for, or even vital to, improvement of the wiki. This belief of his runs counter to one of the foundations of Wikipedia: no original research. Some of his prose is good, some of it is pure bullshit, but regardless of the uneven quality of his writing, he remains a chronic, serial disruptor of Wikipedia, an editor who strikes me as combative for the sake of combativeness. (I've destroyed your concepts again...) In my dealings with him here, here and here, he has never provided a reliable source for his additions or changes to articles, and during one very prolific 15-day period of his in June, I searched for and found that he had never, not once, secured an assertion or opinion with a reference, yet he came to an article I had been watching, one that had 26 references, and tagged it with 81 fact tags. He requires of others what he refuses to provide himself. I believe his destiny lies outside Wikipedia, maybe as a pundit with some online magazine, and the sooner we free him from picking fights here, the sooner he can move toward his next mission in life. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for review
I've blocked for two weeks based on the rationale I've posted above. I invite the community to review my actions, and modify, confirm, or overturn as they see fit. I do request and in fact insist as much as I can, that no precipitous action is taken without time for sufficient review by other members of the community. (So, more than a few hours, please) --Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a good move, since this Holocaust denial affair is just the latest in a series of similar disruptions. The Obama affair Part 1 is well-linked at Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, which pretty much originated with this AfD.  Part 2, a declined ArbCom case is tied in to the above-mentioned Reductio link, but the origin of that affair was this MfD.  Each time it is the same pattern; 1) create/propose problematic (original research/POV forks/coatrack) content, 2) edit war to get it in/created, plus Wall o' Text on talk pages, 3) create new essays and guidelines and cite them to support argument, or inappropriately edit existing ones to do same, 3) XfD takes place, invariably closed not in Steve's favor, 4) Steve runs to ArbCom, more Walls, lots of haranguing about his hand in ArbCom's creation, role, purpose, perceived ineffectiveness and so on.  A topic ban would not have addressed the primary problem; that this behavior spans topics. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the rationale for 2 weeks? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Longish block log, and I felt that there was a certain amount of "oomph" needed to get things through. Also, 2 weeks is about the amount of time I think it takes for it to become clear if the editing environment has normalized or deteriorated due to an editor being removed.--Tznkai (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not fair for you to claim that the guy has meat puppets without naming them. The editing environment jenerally has no relation to one individual among two hundred thousand. 216.234.170.85 (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No talk of meatpuppetry has gone on. You appear to have misunderstood what Tznkai has said.  All he means is that he believes two weeks is enough to judge whether or not a lack of Steve will improve things.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Even ignoring the pre-2009 blocks, there's nothing really objectionable (or "unwarranted" as he suggests), given the build-up. Endorse block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tarc's summary is spot-on. The pattern has repeated itself very closely several times.  Even the insults are the same each time.  Despite the personal grief I've had to deal with arising from this editor, I do hope we can find a way to keep him in the fold before he gets himself banned for good.  I know we're all equal, and being around for so many years doesn't excuse abusing other editors... but we do owe Steve a debt of gratitude for his early contributions.  This seems to me like an interpersonal conflict kind of thing that will take the community's best efforts as far as making peace and getting along.  He obviously does care about the encyclopedia and wants to make it better, according to his view at least of what it should be.  Perhaps his views on content and behavior were okay back in the old days when there were fewer people and articles, and fewer rules.  Back then a dedicated editor probably could have rewritten guidelines with their own experiences as a guide, and they would stick.  If he wants to adjust to the new realities, and finds this to be a place he can still enjoy and get along with us newbies, we should welcome and encourage that.  Maybe two weeks home detention with a mandatory cup of tea?  Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking appropriate action, Tznkai. As I mentioned somewhere above, I would have done the same had I not been involved, albeit peripherally, on the Holocaust Denial article. I believe you are right that WP:DISRUPT applies to talkpages as well as article space; in fact, this was one of the points Steve wikilawyered about when I warned him about his disruption on the HD talkpage. I think that unfortunately his particular penchant for nuanced analysis, admirable though that is, is often counterproductive in an environment where we are specifically prohibited from undertaking original research. Like Wikidemon I respect and value his achievements over the years, and I also hope that he can adjust to the way we actually work as opposed to the way he thinks we ought to work. EyeSerene talk 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The block of only one person in this is totally unwarranted. There were two sides to this Holocaust dispute. By blocking one side only the blocking individual is doing nothing more than imposing his own bias. Eclecticology (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Block someone else? What on Earth for? We don't block editors for fun -- blocks should address some problematic behavior, and specifically should prevent it from continuing. If you earnestly believe someone else should be blocked, here, you're going to have to say why or your post will rightly be ignored as trolling. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, your reference to trolling was only made to be wilfully tendentious. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I do apologize for the offense, though I'd still appreciate some response to the core question: why is another block needed? – Luna Santin  (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one "side" was disruptive and problematic, though. The Israeli-Palestinian topic area is fraught with drama and bickering over many topics that could go either way, but the issue that Steve's "side" (a side of one, for the record) was pushing was his own personal opinion and not one backed by sources. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was only addressing the issue relating to the Holocaust. If there was something related to Israel/Palestine, I don't know about it. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The major failures of the other "side" in this conflict I saw were general surliness, impatience, the tendency to use policy as a bludgeon, assumptions of bad faith, and some sloppy rhetoric. If I started blocking for that, no one would be left on the wiki. Now, don't misunderstand, it is a serious problem and makes that whole consensus thing difficult to achieve, but I've found its more effective to try to bring all parties to a point of parity after explaining to them that they have been caught being a pain and see which, if any of the parties refuse to move forward. Stevertigo refused to move forward despite multiple (and I believe eminently reasonable) requests. It is also reasonable in this case to see that Stevertigo's behavior in general both started and continued this conflict to the breaking point.
 * If however, you (or anyone else) believe there is a reasonable case to be made against the "other side" please go ahead and make it. Thats what these review sections are for. It helps however if you be specific, as opposed to saying that "both sides were wrong."--Tznkai (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You said it all in the first sentence of your reply. If the result were indeed no one would be left on the wiki, so be it... though I doubt that the results will ever be that dramatic. Just because there happen to be several people on one side, and only one on the other does not make either side right. Bringing all parties to parity is not accomplished by imposing the tyranny of the majority.  Stevertigo may very well have refused to move forward, but so too did his adversaries.  Disputes about definitions are not resolved with a game of my-source-is-more-reliable-than-your-source when both or all of the conflicting definitions are within reason.  It's better to keep both sides off the article, state the alternative definitions, and demand that they come to an agreement before any of them can come back. If need be, even set up a special ephemeral site just for them to work it out. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misunderstood. If (general surliness, impatience, the tendency to use policy as a bludgeon, assumptions of bad faith, and some sloppy rhetoric) always lead to a block, then I would be forced to block nearly everyone, on all of Wikipedia. You and me included. Again, I need some sort of more specific allegation against "the other side" that has not already been dealt with by admonition. I mean, I'm not omniscient, I'll need to be linked to the behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I think it's a relief to have a two week break from Steve's ongoing excesses, I'm not quite sure what the point is. It's entirely unlikely that a two week block will change anything in the long run; Steve's certain that he's in the right, and will simply return and continue along the same route. (Steve's been here long enough that there's no reason to have to assume good faith or its opposite; assumption is not necessary when facts are present.) Since blocks are theoretically not intended as punishment, but rather to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, what's the goal here? Is it simply to isolate Steve to his talk page while the rest of us discuss his fate? I would much rather see a consensus formed to make it clear to Steve that his behavior is unsuitable; I certainly don't want Steve gone from Wikipedia, I just want him to knock off this particular behavior pattern. Am I being naive? --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any block exceeding 24 hours is punitive unless it provides real alternatives for solving the problem. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a curious and entirely arbitrary definition. What makes less than 24 hours less punitive? What is it about the 86401st second that takes on a "punitive" character? --Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As to Jpgordon's longer point up there, I'll try to respond but I'm going to have to delve into a little but of theory to explain my perspective. When we say we don't "punish" on Wikipedia what we really mean is we don't use blocks for the sake of retribution, or a community expression of you-were-naughtiness, but rather to prevent future damage. It is basically suggested without saying it outright that we are nakedly utilitarian in our considerations: we try to maximize productivity (read utils for the economists at home) while trying to minimize costs. In this case I am trying to specifically prevent stevertiog from acting in a problematic way for the next two weeks, deter him from in a problematic acting way in the future, deterring others from doing the same. While the block itself may not do it, the additional voices chiming in, any future blocks stevertigo earns, and other factors may lead to behavioral correction. I hope it is sufficient, but it may simply be a necessary building block to whatever solution is finally arrived at.--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

steve had a response here.

while steve's verbosity can be tedious, his first post to the hd talk page here was replied to with an attack ("Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS.") and the usual shrieking accusation ("I guess at least we can thank you for being almost clear about your compulsion to side with anti-Semites whenever the chance appears.") the baiting seems excessive to the extreme. untwirl (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was. Consider it, however, in the context of years of this sort of behavior from Steve. I stepped back because I've little patience with people who say "go fuck yourself" in 1000 seemingly polite words instead of three direct ones. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help seeing the discussion as illustrative of the incoinsistent Wikipedian approach to personal attacks. I think it is clear that Steve has been disruptive over a considerable    number of articles, and that action needs to be taken about this (and I support the block as appropriate action). But some of the approach to him has been drastically unsuitable--I'll just refer to one example--the comments at the top of this at  by Slrubenstein.  How one can possibly expect a good response from anyone after being insulted in this manner is something I do not understand. The actual response was, to be sure, wildly excessive even as a response to insult, but anyone who address an editor here in this manner is In my opinion,   contributing to the disruption of Wikipedia.  It's a human failing to insult when frustrated, yes, but like some other human failings it is not acceptable behavior in a common project.    DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking back what I regret about my statement is that it foreclosed any discussion of what I was hoping people (including Stevertigo) would discuss: his claim that, by describing "Holocaust denial" as a variety of claims that deny that Jews were victims of a genocidal campaign by Nazis and their allies, the article in question was also implying that there was no relationship between this genocidal campaign against Jews, and, as Stevertigo put it, "Nazi mass-murders (of humans)." Everyone (to my recollection) who maintained against Stevertigo's arguments, that the lead should continue to be described this way, stated that they held this position because they were following the sources.  Stevertigo's response is to claim that such editors were instead promoting the view that this genocidal campaign against Jews was totally unrelated to "Nazi mass-murders (of humans)."  Now, you may accuse me of assuming the worst of Stevertigo before the facts were in.  You may be right, but from my perspective I was responding to six years of sporadic, but similarly patterned, behavior.  I continue to find this remark by Stevertigo, and the use of the parenthetical "of humans," really disturbing.  But I would have been glad if Steve could have explained that he meant something else or that he hadn't thought through what he wrote, and regretted it.  I would have been glad if other editors examined the remark and either said, "Slrubenstein, you are misreading him" or "Wait a second, what does he mean?  That is what I was hoping for, and my comment had the opposite effect, it ended discussion, and I do regret that, I regret it entirely.


 * The fact remains that there is an issue that is obscured - well, at least from my perspective. One issue is the conflict between Stevertigo and others - take me out of the picture just so we can focus on the substance of the conflict.  It is not about personal attacks.  In the past few years I have seen virtually every conflict at Wikipedia reduced to one of personal attacks.  I think that perhaps this is because ArbCom can only handle behavior policy conflicts, so these are the only conflicts we end up seeing.  It may also be because we never developed a mechanism to resolve content policy conflicts, and sometime these conflicts, unresolved, leave people so frustrated that personal attacks erupt.  My point is that at the root is a content conflict, a conflict over substance, and we need to start examining these conflicts and talking about them and not just ignoring them until someone makes personal attacks.  In my view, the conflict between Stevertigo and the others was a conflict between someone who was advocating the inclusion of a point of view without providing sources, and the others were advocating keeping a point of view because they had sources.  When I see someone advocate a perspective but who refuses to provide sources, I think I have a reason to suspect that s/he is pushing his or her personal point of view (thus violating both NPOV and NOR).  When people insist on the inclusion of a perspective because they have sources, I see no cause to suspect them of either.  Now, this is my interpretation of the conflict between Stevertigo and the others.  If I am right, it is an asymmetrical conflict, meaning, one side is violating policy, the other side is not.  I think this is getting lost in the discussion.  Maybe I am wrong, but this discussion would be more productive if admins involved here went over the discussion (bracketing me for the moment) to see what the conflict was at root about.  Is there evidence that Stevertigo provided sources for his claims?  Is there evidence that others failed to provide sources for their claims?  Let's sort this out.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the course of this discussion has implied to you that 1100+ word essays are welcome or even useful?--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed that all views are "welcome." And it seems to me that 1500 words from one person can be just as useful as 1500 words of conversation among several people.  But if you think what I wrote is in bad faith or unconstructive, delete it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering one of the primary complaints against Stevertigo was the excessive verbosity/walls of text to slog through, I thought it was obvious that concision is very important. I actually read of what you wrote, so let me respond quickly to the salient point on antisemtism and accusations thereof. Calling someone an anti-semite is an attack, directed at a person. Compare: "you're a racist" "you're a fag" "you're a murderer". However sincere your conviction that these things are true, they are still attacks on a person's character. More importantly, how is your belief, however qualified or equivocated and sincere, at all helpful? Its counterproductive nature should be obvious, and I don't see any justification for continuing it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my intention to refer to Stevertigo's actions, and not his beliefs. I am sorry if I gave any other impression.  If what I wrote is so prone to be misread, I'll delete it myself.  I am a little troubled by your equating someone who accuses someone of being a murderer with someone who accuses someone of homosexuality, though.  Is that really what you meant, or is this another misunderstanding? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a quick moment to respond to your other point (note that the point Tznkai responded to above was removed) about Steve not providing sources to back up all of his view, I don't believe that has ever truly been in dispute, except by Steve himself. I don't doubt that, if he continues the same behaviors after his block expires (or after he is unblocked), he will merely end up blocked again for the same disruption.  As Steve is currently blocked, and it doesn't seem likely he is going to request another unblock at this time, there seems little point in continuing to state what he did wrong.  Either he will improve, or he won't.  We've already made our point clear enough.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the basic issue is whether there is a history of disruption by not providing sources and insisting on including OR. Perhaps those other issues shouldn't be discussed here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

is steve just making up the "Columbia Guide to The Holocaust"? the claim that he's put forth numerous times, that has been seemingly ignored, is that the source he's using is the same one that is already used in the article. i haven't looked it up, because i've been commenting on the behaviour and not the content dispute, but he has repeated that source over and over ... untwirl (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the first reference used in the article. It is used twice, once to source the definition of Holocaust used in the first sentence and once to source a statistic for the number of Jews killed during the event.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 04:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * on his talk page, he calls all this talk of "or" and "no sources" a red herring. if columbia is a rs and he is justifying his additions in good faith then i would have to agree with him on that.  probably people arent reading through his posts (i understand).  perhaps steve could be cautioned to provide his sources upfront in his post so people dont have to search for them, and slr could be cautioned not to engage in disruptive personal attacks.  untwirl (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * but, as jpgordon says, i dont know steve's history. ive never really interacted with him that i can remember. i just saw how another editor was attacking him without reproach and thought that should be mentioned.  untwirl (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Untwirl, in a Disrupotive Editing case the history is very important. At the very least I would ask you to read through the discussion on the Holocaust Denial page thoroughly (but that said, my immediate response to Steve was based on arguments I have had with him at articles on Jesus, Ehud, and linguistics over the past year, in which his behavior mimicked patterns he displayed back in 2004 when he got into conflicts ofver edits to antiSemitism and other articles ... the history is essential to the DE charge).  Be that as it may, I wish to clarify one thing about the conflict at HD: I never questioned that the source exists, only that Stevertigo was using it in a way that violates WP:SYNTH. I realize that I am often elliptical in my argument, but my point is not that Stevertigo has never mentions sources, only that he never provides sources that support his claims i.e. he takes a source (often one already used in the article) that legitimately supports one claim, and uses it spuriously to support another claim. A simple analogy would be for my to argue that a woman in the US has a right to an abortion, and provide as my source the US Constitution. Well, actually, nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that a woman has a right to an abortion. It would be correct to say that the US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution in such a way as to support a woman's right to an abortion, and then provide as a citation Blackman's opinion in Roe v. Wade (Or Lawrence Tribe's account of the whole thing). Right or wrong, this has been a controversial matter in the US for thirty years and to use the US Constitution itself as a source to support the claim is disingenuous and inflammatory to many. Stevertigo often uses no sources at all - that is true ... often. Sometimes he dos use sources, but in ways that nevertheless violate NOR. In the Ehud case (I provided a link earlier), he may well have had access to a Hebrew=English dictionary, or Bible lexicon, but if so he was using it to make claims that were etirely his own and unsupported by any study of Hebrew. So it would be more accurate to say that he often never uses sources, arguing that they are unnecessary to support his claims, or uses sources in ways that violate NOR, especially SYNTH, to support his claims. OIn the HD page there were tiumes when he mentioned the Columbia Guide to the Holocause but I retorted that he had no sources, because the COlumbia Guide was not a source that supported his claim. i am sorry if this was unclear and hope it is clearer, now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In a nutshell:
 * "The Holocaust" (capital 'H') is most often defined to refer to the genocide of the European Jews, but the term can also be legitimately widened to refer to all Nazi atrocities (Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals etc). This is supported by the Columbia source.
 * "Holocaust Denial", in all sources uncovered so far, exclusively refers to the downplaying of the genocide of Jewish people. No sources have been discovered that widen this term to encompass the Nazis' other victims.
 * Stevertigo was connecting the two, using the valid argument about "The Holocaust" to come to a novel conclusion unsupported by the sources about "Holocaust Denial".
 * It's not that he misunderstands WP:V, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, he just has his own ideas about them (see, for example, his Conceptualization essay). This is the root of the long-term problem. EyeSerene talk 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I view this as a very constructive step forward. Obviously if I thought mediation or mentorin would help I would feel far less frustrated, and temperate in my interactions with Stevertigo.  Clearly I am not capable ot helping resolve this problem.  I wish someone else, or a couple of others, could.  As you say it is a long-term problem.  I see a consistent pattern stretching over a wide range of articles from 2003-2009, and as some have suggested there is room to doubt that a two week block will help.  As you imply, I have always believed that Stevertigo simply misunderstood our NPOV and NOR and V policies.  If I am right a two week block to study those policies and how they are applied is reasonable.  If you are right, it may completely miss the mark.  I grant that it is as likely you are right than I am.  But if you are right about the root of a long-term problem, what is the solution? This is not a rhetorical question, I obviously have reached the limit of my ability to deal with this probleem and will heceforth withdraw from the discussion.  But if you are right, I hope this discussion now moves in the direction of considering constructive solutions. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just my reading of the situation :) The impression I get is that Stevertigo either believes the policies are being applied in too limited a way, or are actually hindering proper (as he sees it) development of the article subject. Whichever, I do think it's a more fundamental issue than him simply misunderstanding them. Perhaps he's even right, but unless/until our policies change I really do wonder if he might be happier somewhere where he can apply his ideas more feely without running into perpetual conflicts. EyeSerene talk 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When engagement in a discussion begins with "good to see you are back to your usual BS," it does not bode well, and suggests that the maker of that comment ahould have received the same punishment for disruptive behaviour as stevertigo. Even if there is justification for calling the current statements BS putting that in terms of "back to your usual" imports much that is not part of the current discussion, and that is probably of no interest to those who would like the dispute settled. I'll not even detail the other inappropriate comments made later by the same person in the course of the discussion. There already appears to be agreement that the Holocaust included the killing of both Jews and others. To derive from that that somehow Holocaust denial is different denial of the Holocaust as already defined is sophistry that flies in the face of the plain language. That is not a sourcing problem; putting it in terms of sourcing is a distraction. The burden of establishing that the word "Holocaust" is being used in two different ways in the same discussion should rest entirely upon the person who is trying to split that hair, and that includes the burden of making clear which meaning is intended in each of the multiple times that it is used.  Monopolizing the suffering in the Holocaust on behalf of one group while at the same time minimizing the suffering of others in that same event strikes me to be just as much Holocaust denial as denying that it happened to that one group; it should be condemned with equal vigour in both instances. Perhaps different words should be used when the intention is to isolate the Jewish tragedy from that of the others. A word like "shoah" (or some other) could be used for the specific Jewish tragedy, leaving "Holocaust" available for the wider description. Eclecticology (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Slrubenstein's comments were counterproductive, and he's acknowledged that above and regrets them. That, however, is a different issue. To respond to your above, like Stevertigo you seem to be seeing the word "Holocaust", used in two related but differently-defined terms, in isolation. The terms "The Holocaust" and "Holocaust denial" have to be treated by us, as article writers, in the way they're used in the sources - as complete entities. "The Holocaust" was a historical event. "Holocaust denial" is a current phenomena. That they both have the word 'Holocaust' in them does not mean the definition of one extends in all its meanings to the other. There is a disconnect, that's true, but for whatever reason no-one seems to have denied the genocides of people other than the Jews. If I was to speculate why, I'd say the inherently antisemitic nature of those involved in Holocaust denial provides a large clue (and perhaps if the Jewish Holocaust can be 'disproved', by extension the other genocides didn't happen either?). I agree that another term would be helpful, but again we're stuck with what the sources say and forbidden from coming to our own conclusions - however logical - about how we think the words ought to be used. EyeSerene talk 08:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
It might be helpful if links are given to the specific edits of articles (i.e. the diffs) by Stevertigo that are alleged to be improper. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * , an article created/written by Stevertigo in 2003. I believe the whoe article violates NOR and merely expresses Stevertigo's personal views Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo proposes an addition to an article that is entirely OR in 2009. Note: he provides links to two web sources, but he is using them to forward an argument that is found in neither source and that is uniquely his own. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Going back to 2003 digs rather deep, and if NOR is to be a factor in judging that it must depend on NOR as it was in 2003. These wide ranging references to other articles do more to expand the dispute than to solve it. Eclecticology (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, everyone else here aside from Stevertigo felt that the 2003 edit was wrong at the time. The point is to show a pattern, and a deeply entrenched pattern.  You want mor recent links?  Provide them, or encourage others to provide them, I certainly amin favor of that.  As for NOR "judging," maybe I misunderstood.  I didn't think this was a trial in which a person is judged guilty of having violated what was a law at the time; indeed, I did not know wikipedia had laws at all, in the sense you mean.  I thought this was an attempt to understand the pattern of behavior many editors here find unproductive and frustrating.  Moreover, I see this less as a dispute and more as a problem.  I don't think it is constructive to view all problems at Wikipedia as "disputes," a disputation suggests a question qhere two diferent partis have compteeting arguments.   Eye, above, suggests that Stevertigo has a different viw of NPOV or NOR than others ... well, she may be right, but I thought it would be more productive to focus on behaviors than beliefs.  In any event, if you mean to encourage more example, I am on your side. I know that over the past couple of weeks other editors provided edit-difs and other examples, it is just a matter of reading over the discussion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What was said in 2003 should be of no consequence; that was six years ago, and standards at that time were not yet as complex as they now appear to be. There are certainly competing arguments in this dispute, and both deserve equal respect without the prejudicial position that either is wrong ab initio.  Disputes (or problems if you prefer) are solved by focusing on the points at issue, not by producing an ever expanding catalogue of an adversary's misdeeds in unrelated discussions. Insisting on a specialized definition of a term based on an arbitrary decision of whose source is most reliable does not get us there. Eclecticology (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if we're seeing the same pattern of disruptive editing across such a span of years, that is even more reason to take action now. Steve has waged a years-long battle in Holocaust and antisemitism-related articles, and has recently branched out to Obama criticism and Nazi analogies.  If anything, it is getting worse. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Eclecticology's comment, "Going back to 2003 digs rather deep, and if NOR is to be a factor in judging that it must depend on NOR as it was in 2003." - The Stevertigo diff was on 5 Feb 2003. WP:NOR  began 21 Dec 2003 with this edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Slrubenstein's comment, "Yeah, well, everyone else here aside from Stevertigo felt that the 2003 edit was wrong at the time." - If true, that seems to show that Stevertigo had a minority opinion, rather than a violation of policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A Sep 2009 diff of Stevertigo described as "An example of original research" in a previous message of Tznkai here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your use of the passive voice is duly noted. His last edit to the article as diffed by you was on Sept 13. That was reverted. Your characterization of that as "original research" is your opinion; I won't attempt to oppose or substantiate that characterization. Any further discussion of his addendum was on the talk page, and that was perfectly normal.  "Original research" may justify removal of certain statements from an article, but it takes much more than such an ad hoc characterization to justify punitive action. Eclecticology (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expressing my opinion but only bringing the information over here from Tnzkai's message. Sorry that wasn't clear enough and thanks for helping me clear up that possible misunderstanding.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some additional details that I looked up myself.


 * 1. Stevertigo originally introduced that passage with a series of edits.
 * 2. It was reverted by Tarc with an edit summary explaining the reasons, "rv: unsourced, speculative orig. research, inserted here to prop up this user's MfD opinion."
 * 3. Stevertigo reverted Tarc's revert and put the passage back in the article and did not address the issues  of unsourced and OR.
 * 4. It was reverted again, this time by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters.
 * 5. Stevertigo reverted Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' revert and put the passage back in the article.
 * 6. It was reverted again by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I outright refuse to base or justify decisions on edits six years stale. Wikipedia in 2003 was a happier, easier, less tense place, where a conflict like this had a greater potential of peaceful resolution. Also, please continue discussion on Holocaust Denial itself to the appropriate talk page. Compromises are good if they can be managed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Holocaust denial" was the basis for the present discussion, and is inseparable from it. If a solution to the problem there is a by-product of a solution here so much the better. Eclecticology (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See the history of Perfect crime from April of this year, starting with this edit where Stevertigo introduced a personal religious opinion into the article, and when challenged to provide sources for the relevance of this opinion to an article on criminology, instead provided sources from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the omniscience of God here. And see Talk:Perfect crime for wikilawyering and an insistence that those that disagree provide reliable sources as to why his opinion should not be included! It's much the same pattern of editing as has been described throughout this discussion. --Stormie (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I might be more inclined to disagree with the substance of stevertigo's views about that article than here, there is nothing more there than the usual back and forth that is essential to article development. Eventually the argument died down, and the article is now what it is. Both sides engaged in wikilawyering, but that's a usual procedure these days; so what? All sorts of situations become grossly distorted when in the course of a persecution they drag in all sorts of old, and often settled, disputes in an attempt to prejudice the case.  Normal courts do well to disallow evidence of past convictions in the course of determining a person's guilt in a current situation.  It's even worse when those past deeds are nothing more than allegations. People who stand up for what they believe should be encouraged, and later finding those beliefs to be inaccurate is not a proper basis for finding fault in the person. Eclecticology (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you not actually reading what others are writing? These aren't simple allegations, it is yet another example of the same type of behavior we've been talking about here.  How many more examples do we need of Stevertigo warring over the insertion of his own unsourced opinion into articles? Tarc (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So he has on occasion inserted "his own unsourced opinion". These were removed, and in due course he stopped insisting on including that opinion. For each of these that should be the end of it. The pretense that these are not simple allegations only furthers a will to win the debate; it does not further any kind of consensus building. What can possibly be accomplished by piling on accusations of past misdeeds? They generate a lot of heat and no light. Eclecticology (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's the excerpt from Disruptive editing which Tznkai gave  previously.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Binksternet's list of disruptive edits by Stevertigo
 * Stevertigo's hopelessly original research at Perfect crime.
 * His extensive defense of this original text at Talk:Perfect crime, including his refusal to supply references other than these Catholic encyclopedia definitions of "omniscience" and "Hell".
 * User_talk:Binksternet/Archive4—I've destroyed your concepts again...
 * Talk:Life/Archive_4—Um, would you be violating DBAD again, just to avoid dealing with my complete and total destruction of your arguments...
 * Talk:Life/Archive_4—Instead of harrassing me at every turn and then having me obliterate you talk page by talk page, you should try starting a general referendum on my editing. (...) I look forward to the good work you can do in taking your harassment to a conceptual level.
 * Talk:Life/Archive_4—I've been dealing with Bink's harrassment, hypocrisy, and comments across several talk pages now, and just today I imagine that I have sufficiently destroyed them...
 * Talk:American Dream—Take notes —we're going to take your sourcing and stalking concepts to their illogical conclusion.
 * Stevertigo added 81 fact tags at Loudspeaker, following my repositioning of a paragraph he wrote, one without any references. Stevertigo did not tag his own, unreferenced paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That one right there is the most beautiful demonstration of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point I've ever seen. --Stormie (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock
The IP that interjected above, 216.234.170.85, has not edited since 2006. Immediately after Stevertigo was blocked, this IP resumed editing, with the very first edit being here. I have added a suspected Sock tag to the IP's talk page. - <b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">D</b>rew <b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">S</b>mith <i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i> 08:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. This IP made a few edits (after the 3yr layoff) about 12 hrs before Steve's block; is he really that prescient?  Also, I have a reasonable certainty as to what Steve's IP is...or was, at one point in time...and it was nothing remotely close to this one here, which is from Edmonton, Alberta.  I think this is a bit of a stretch. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this ANI?
I see that things are going slow here, not to mention wandering off into my 7 year old diffs, possible sock puppets, and talk page comments, rather than actual editing.

Putting the blame all on me is disruptive. The personal attacks by Jayjg and Slrubenstein are more than annoying, as Untwirl, DGG and a couple others pointed out. In fact, DGG, while I appreciate your pointing out Slrubenstein's violations, I disagree with your unncessarily gentle approach -- his attacks were not just "contributing to the disruption of Wikipedia," they were violations of moral principle. Granted, "Holocaust denial" can be touchy stuff. Civility is nevertheless a "principle." It facilitates rational discussion, trumps any modalities of slander and stigmatization (such as I have had to tolerate), and disregards whatever claims to noble purpose those slanders are allegedly based on.

I'm not interested in making anyone here feel bad. Still I am not happy with how thing just went. I am interested only in seeing that these problems get corrected. Others (you) started this ANI, and I want to see all of them (you) get their (your) issues out openly, and with whatever detail and reasonable expressiveness they (you) can muster. I will then take the opportunity to refute each.

Slrubenstein, in case anyone's interested, appears to be the one that added the text to WP:DISRUPT that considers "comments" on talk pages to be under the scope of "editing" -- a recent (11.2008) redefinition of a term previously reserved for just articles. My block for two weeks was itself based in large part on the concept that even talk page comments are "editing," which, apparently, is a concept derived from Slrubenstein's own re-wording of DISRUPT. So we have before us a classic example of a policy loop, a conflict of interest, a violation of civility (serious), and an impromptu block, each and all based on unsupportable and recent policy clauses of Slrubenstein's own making. And that's without even getting mentioning the base-lessness of the "disruption" claim itself (even when employing Slrubenstein's own definition), or the fact that Slrubenstein's notable abundance of commentary here is all negated by his desire now to withdraw from this discussion. After all of these serious flaws, what now is the actual meaning of this ANI? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the conversation has died down. Maybe the best thing to do is wait another week or two then just ask if it can be archived or deleted.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the plan. If the issue of my alleged "disruptive editing patterns" -- a concept you yourself have contributed to -- had any validity to begin with, then why has this referendum on me "died down?" This alleged referendum on my "disruptive editing patterns," began and continued with earnest, and therefore its not fitting that it should just die down with a whimper. You people should not complain now that you know that your original goal is harder to achieve than you thought.


 * All of you who have been disrupting Wikipedia and wasting everyone's time with these allegations of "disruptive editing" now have to actually stand by and substantiate your allegations. I had to endure weeks of slander and mis-characterization, all of it based on seriously misconceived notions. That some of these notions have been encoded into policy and process concepts, means those need to be exised. All of it cannot just end without apology, such that even after the total nullification of these claims, all fault can still be stigmatized to me anyway. I will get that apology. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What else was there to discuss? Your long history of disruptive editing and refusal to get the point and change course led to a blissful (for us) 2 week block.  That's why it "died down".
 * You will be getting no apology here, as you were the one in the wrong. That you are unable/unwilling to understand that, along with this apparent intent to pick up right where you left off, does not bode well for the future. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You do understand that the purpose of this ANI was not just to block me and give you a couple weeks of "blissful" rest, right? Its purpose was to discredit my editing and to discredit my ideas about editing. Has this ANI succeded in that goal, Tarc? If not, why not then continue? You can't be happy about me being back, when according to you and others I'm just going to come back to my "usual BS" anyway. So if you and others here actually think there is a case to be made, then make it. Now is your chance - cobble together that allegedly damning list of "disruptive" "edit" diffs, and put an RFAR case together. That is, if you still think those claims are valid. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, the project does not revolve around you, and its members do not hatch grand schemes to discredit your edits and your ideas. The purpose of the AN/I was to discuss what to do about a problem editor.  I'm sure admins and others will keep an eye on how you behave from here on out, and decide what further steps are necessary, if any.
 * Perhaps you should spend some time on reflecting why no other admin saw fit to lift it early in response to several unblock requests. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) Okay, just a process suggestion on my part that the discussion is about to go away on its own in case you just want it gone. Vindication is a harder goal.  I acknowledge we've had conflicts that I considered part of a pattern I hope will change, but I am not going to seek out a dispute where it doesn't involve me.  You've done a lot of good for Wikipedia that should be praised.  I don't see the point in starting this discussion with a heading asking whether someone should be labeled a "disruptive editor" when the issue at hand is ostensibly a specific editing conflict on a specific article.  I gave my opinion somewhere on some board that the approach that must have been necessary to get Wikipedia started when there were few articles, rules, or editors doesn't work now that everything is so much larger, more bureaucratic and fixed.  You may be suffering the adjustment problems an old revolutionary once the revolution is over.  Back then things needed shaking up, individuals could singlehandedly create institutions, large important articles could be painted in broad strokes and fundamentally rewritten quickly by a single editor.  Now there is more resistance and things are done incrementally.  I can't support that, it's just a hunch.  Beyond that I don't have anything to add.  Good luck here, and to everyone else, what's the point piling on Stevertigo now?  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't admins honor unblock requests? I think they were a little strident.  It's rare that a block will be lifted in response to an argument that the block was wrong.  It's more likely to be granted in response to contrition, promises not to do it again, etc., something Steve did not offer.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Tarc wrote: "Steve, the project does not revolve around you" - That's a rather pejorative thing to say in this context, and in fact its not even true: This ANI itself is a "project" of sorts - one with an apparent purpose - and its title suggests it actually does "revolve around [me]."
 * 2) Tarc wrote: "..and its members do not hatch grand schemes to discredit your edits and your ideas." - I never characterized collective and targeted criticisms as "schemes," nor "hatch[ings]," let alone "grand" ones. Your characterizations, again, are entirely pejorative.
 * 3) Tarc wrote: "The purpose of the AN/I was to discuss what to do about a problem editor ." - (Underline mine). Could you try to rephrase that, Tarc, in such a way that your concept of this 'formal discussion' doesn't itself rest on just a pejorative? I mean, there is no real excuse for you to keep violating AGF and CIVIL, unless there is some greater institutional lack of Civility at work here. Which is the whole point - if there is some greater institutional lack of Civility at work here (and I'm not saying there isn't), it needs to be replaced with something better. Don't take that personally.
 * 4) Tarc wrote: "I'm sure admins and others will keep an eye on how you behave from here on out, and decide what further steps are necessary, if any." - Well, here is what *is going to happen. Either people actually turn this ANI into something substantive, or I will demonstrate its original pointlessness, and make an issue of its "disruptive" aspects.
 * 5) Tarc wrote: "Perhaps you should spend some time on reflecting why no other admin saw fit to lift it early in response to several unblock requests." - Well, my theory - and this is just a theory - is that the subject matter appears to be of a high degree of temperature, and the editorial arguments were difficult to parse. Thus, just as with the military, the tools available to "admins" are not quite intelligent and not usually appropriate to the task. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Wikidemon wrote: [A bunch of reasonable and intelligent things]. Nice.
 * 2) Wikidemon wrote: "I acknowledge we've had conflicts that I considered part of a pattern I hope will change, but I am not going to seek out a dispute where it doesn't involve me." - Thanks for that too - I likewise acknowledge that we've been in conflicts that appeared to reflect a pattern on your part. ^_^ As far as "seeking out a dispute where it doesn't involve [someone]," I take this to mean that stalking me from article to article would be beneath you? Good. Unfortunately that is not the case with several editors here, and that also has to be corrected.
 * 3) Wikidemon wrote: "Good luck here, and to everyone else, what's the point piling on Stevertigo now?" - Thanks, and to answer for them, there wasn't actually a good point to begin with. This ANI came out of the discussion at HD and tried to become something large. Obviously, with this ANI nullified, I can now get back to that discussion. If you want to help out there, just to kind of make sure things are not getting out of hand, then that would be fine. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve, Could you comment on this ? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your question is a bit ambiguous in the current context: Who wants to know and why? I do recall you saying "good luck," which I interpreted to mean your involvement in discussing my allegedly problematic edit patterns was ended, and you were going back to doing constructive things. I am curious right now who is actually still looking at this page and contributing to it in various ways? More specific and focused questions might better - "comment on this possible violation" is vague and also a bit presumptuous, even with the "possible" in it.


 * Paraphrasing, the question you are asking is: 'The edit (referred to here) to the Reductio ad Naziam article has been called by some an example of a "WP:NOR violation." Is it your opinion that this edit does not violate NOR policy? Continuing in that vein, you could also ask, 'Would it not be appropriate for others here to make inferences about your general editing patterns over 7.2 years, based just on this one edit? Can concerned editors thus base our judgments on just examples where there may be flaws, and ignore the 35,000 other edits you've made, minus comments?' Would it not make sense to ignore those numerous failed and inaccurate attacks and characterizations against and about you, and just proceed on those few that might validate, justify, or even support the last three or five weeks of attacks on your editing? Those are just some ideas. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, At that link an editor accused you of violating WP:NOR and I was giving you a chance to give your opinion as to whether or not it was a violation. My feeling is that you could easily prove that editor wrong by giving the sources that you used for that passage and the relevant excerpts from those sources. Not only would that help your situation but it would allow you to include that passage in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concept of "giving [me] a chance" is a bit tendentious, Bob. Again, who is asking? Are you representing other, less visible people and their views? It is my understanding that this ANI is dead, and if you alone want to continue it, I have to wonder what your issues are. I mean, I've never had any previous run-ins with you, have I? I've never trounced you on any talk pages, or asked you what the difference is between Spanish and Castellano, so what's your beef in this? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Awhile back there was an informal request for comments by an editor at WT:NOR regarding an essay you wrote. Mainly out of curiosity, I read the essay and it wasn't clear to me. So I looked into the matter more and found the area where you were being accused of being a disruptive editor. I was concerned that this possibly was a case of an editor being railroaded so I looked into it some more. Please note that if one editor can be railroaded, others can be too, even if they are good editors.


 * One aspect of the criticism seemed to be simply that you had a minority opinion on a subject, which is no violation of policy, and I pointed that out. (It is sometimes the case that in the land of the blind the one-eyed person is considered wrong by everyone else.) I also requested that if you were being accused of being a disruptive editor, the relevant part of WP:DIS should be specified. This was to avoid false accusations of disruptiveness, as defined by Wikipedia.  I think I also contributed to your case being treated fairly with my comments regarding the 2003 incident.


 * But it appeared that the source of your problems, and the problems that others had with you, was that you try to include your own ideas in articles. If somehow that was out of the way, Wikipedia and its editing environment would be improved. Improvement of Wikipedia seems to be the goal of all editors, and it can be done in various ways, and I felt that my participation here was one way. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm on the way out the door, so I'll keep it short. I appreciate the explanation, and understand that you are approaching this case objectively and rationally, and probably make a habit of doing so. The context of the Reductio ad Nazium edit is important, as it came in the context of dealing with that allegedly "BLP-violating" [userspace] subpage about recent similar ad-hominems that employed the same kind of language. I was a bit frustrated at that point, largely because instead of dealing with editors I was (to use Lebowski metaphors) having to deal with both the Nihilists and the Malibu police. So I was simply in the frame of mind to get the ideas out, after which I would come back to source them. I added the text to that article because I thought it was pretty straightforward and uncontroversial, and probably easy to source, when I got around to it. It was removed quite quickly and I was busy with sorting out other kinds of violations to care. The concept is certainly accurate, and was relevant to the other case, and so its omission seemed indicative of a serious bias at a time when those misconceptions were quite present in the news. There is a well-sourced but SYNTH-conceptualized National Socialism article that seems to feed into that same exact fallacy, and that needs to be dealt with. So I had a lot going on, and it astonished me how obstiliterate the deletion process was, and how a serious omission of that same fallacy was maintained in the context of two or three "reliably sourced" articles. All the while the subject matter had become top story news, and we still didn't have an article about it, or why it was going on. Carter came along and put the brakes on the whole thing, and we all then sort of just moved on to doing better things. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC) PS: Note now that National Socialism simply redirects to Nazism. There is still a Talk:National Socialism page which explains the various reasons for why the article itself was, is, and always will be, un-notable as anything but a redirect. -SV