Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

 * Prior AN/I, from September 2009, resulted in a two week block for "Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy" Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009
 * ''Prior RFC, from August 2005, regarding problematic behavior as Administrator at the Vietnam War article, which became an Arbcom case and resulted in desyopping: Requests for comment/Stevertigo, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Stevertigo
 * Prior RFA, 29 August 2009, which became an Arbcom case Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, which succeeded in sanctioning several editors on both sides, including Stevertigo, currently active (June 21, 2010), one year topic ban and editing restrictions: Arbitration/Active sanctions

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo continues a pattern of problematic editing across several articles. Furthermore, I state that this is not a content dispute. This is about replacing sourced, referenced, and cited material, with WP:OR. Stevertigo argues as if this is type of behavior (and this position) is valid on the talk pages of several articles. Several other editors are invloved. The articles involved are Time, Time in physics, Punishment, and, I think one other.

First encounter with Stevertigo, here: where I removed WP:OR and replaced it with content supported by references already in place. Please see edit history statement. Next, User:Stevertigo, reverted this edit and replaced with the unsourced and unreferenced statement,. In addition, it is mostly incomprehensible. Also, this part appears to be cited, but some other editor had placed the this template:.

On the talk page Stevertigo had created a new section, with my User-name as the section title. He quoted my edit summary, and gave what may seem like a level-headed response. However, he just replaced my edit with original research and incomprehensible wording. Next, is my response. Also I changed the name for the inappropriate section title. Using my name as the section title is an indication of focusing on the editor (me), and not on the content. It has the appearance of a personal attack. See edit history statement for my response.

My response on the article talk page has been removed, and the title reverted back to my user-name. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name,. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. . Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. .

I was unable to actually add my response to the section formerly titled with my user-name. I ended up placing my response in another section.

The lede is where Steveritgo desires to place his edits. In fact, in these several articles it turns out that Stevertigo desires to place his POV content in the lede:
 * Punishment,.


 * Time in physics ,


 * Physics


 * Human,  (see also "Addtion to my complaint" below)


 * Time is illustrated by the above diffs.

This assertion is supported by the following statement on his user-talk page "My focus has generally been on writing good ledes, which set the tone for the rest of the article."

Also on his talk page: I strive through a conceptually organised approach to craft language that deals with the essence and substance of ideas,. This is linked to his own essay Conceptualization. He created this page. The signifigance is that he has given priority to concepts which are not based on reliable soures or verifiablity, on article talk pages. Then the conversation can become mired in challenging his WP:OR conceptulizing with the need for deriving facts from reliable sources. Here,, he plainly states: "The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head)". Also, the section is entitled "Concept cloud".

There is also a collapsible info box which opens to reveal, a list of concepts, i.e.,
 * reality
 * physical, physics
 * transformation, change
 * etc., etc., with about 18 more "concepts" following these (inside the collapsible box).

Perhaps Stevertigo thinks editing is about gaining the high ground when insisting on placing unsourced and unverifiable material in an article, as he does here -, and here It changes the intended dynamics of the editing process. This creates a battleground atmosphere.

Jim Wade removes Stevertigo's WP:OR statement. See edit history comments. ,. And I agreed with him. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit, and then becomes argumentative on the talk page. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion. He appears to be using a guideline to gain an advantage. However, editing is not intended to be about gaining an advantage over other editors to place original research material in an article. The original research material is not supposed to be there. And if it is, then the thing to do is to remove it, and it should make sense to all editors involved. However, over the course of three or four articles, where editing with Stevertigo is involved, it has been a constant battle. He is adamant about placing WP:OR in the ledes.

Before I came on the scene, this behavior appears on July 12, 2010. This lede is similar to his lede of August 2 and after. [

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row, cullimanting in "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs:, , ,  , , ,.

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history. Outnumbered, Stevertigo finally moved on. To where? I don't know.

However, around this same time, other editors and I, had to deal with Stevertigo at Time in physics. It was another running battle of WP:OR vs. WP:V ---, , , , etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion. However, on the talk pages of both articles Stevertigo was sufficiently informed about using only sourced material. From his responses and his editing he refuses to get it, figithing obstinately to have his WP:OR leading the articles. Once again he was outnumbered and he moved on.

In the article Punishment the story is the same (a running battle between WP:OR and WP:V), except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th. I thought Stevertigo had moved on. Much to my surprise, I discovered that on September 16 he had obssesively edited the lede 16 times in a row, 15 of which were on September 16th. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here. Jim Wade stepped in after 16 edits, and began to counter Stevertigo's WP:OR edits. I noted on the talk page that "it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago - Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article." The next edits were Jim Wade diplomatically countering Stevertigos edits. Ultimately, I restored the consensus lede established on August 9th.

I was still not intending to go to ANI. However, when Stevertigo made an audio version of sometihing which he describes as "To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction". He is refering to me and my writing. I have no problem that he made an audio version of anything, and placed it on the talk page. The problem is this is the same old routine - WP:OR vs. WP:V - only with an audio device.

I also need to expand this complaint to show that Stevertigo is not likely to alter is behavior a result of normal sanctioning. He has had some issues (conflicts) all the way back to 2005. Yet, five years later he still operating as if guidelines and policies do not apply to him.

Apparently, in 2005, as an administrator he unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagreed with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. He also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page. ,. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year). With this Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Is this editing restriction applicable to only Obama articles, or to any article that he edits? Because, if it is general editing restriction he has violated this with this set of articles. I have a page that lists ANIs where some only mention his name, while others are issues related to his problematic type editing. Therefore, I will not provide that link, but I intend to go through it for a more complete picture. The 2005 incidents were started with edit warring in the Viet Nam article. So I would like to do a more complete investigation, including checking out some of his edit history.

Also, his most recent edits (2:37 September 19, 2010) were in the Physics article, Here he started the same pattern of inserting WP:OR material. It was subsequently reverted within 24 hours. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I copied the following from an entry I created in the body of the article:

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Animal Rights: . After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, . And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
 * Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): . The original has been restored.
 * Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010), and related discussion.
 * Holocaust denial: Here: . Reverted: on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts:  Conceptualization. 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses

 * Its 2 am where I am so I'll keep this brief. I have not read all of the material that Steve Quinn has presented, and having scanned it, it looks substantial. At first sight, I am myself almost convinced of SQ's thesis that I am a "problematic editor" and should go somewhere else. However I've been a "problematic editor" for some eight years now, AIUI, five years longer than SQ. I note that I have faced ANI's from people before and they typically consist of the same generalisms and inuendo, always failing to substantiate the points expressed. Note that that after the two or three pages of comment above, SQ's way of informing me of this ANI note was "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: (edit conflict) As I state on my userpage, one of my main focuses for years has been on improving the ledes to articles. Examples from the last couple days include my my edits to the war, militarism and rights articles. My issues with SQ became centered at the punishment article, after my rewrite of the lede (the first edits there in months), another editor followed me there after losing an editorial debate at time, and SQ followed suit. I have been trying to get the point accross to SQ that his way of conceptualizing a concept and introducing the topic (punishment in this case) lacked the kind of cohesion and substance that I think articles require. He talks about keeping a fidelity to the sources, and I have no problem with this point. The problem is that he sometimes apparently parrots the sources such that what is being written doesn't actually make sense. I recorded a spoken audio file of SQ's introduction to the punishment article (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg) because I think when read aloud, the inherent inconsistencies (in SQ's conceptualization) become rather obvious, and this negates any value that blind sourcing brings. I was expecting SQ to respond on that article talk page, not here. I will of course substantiate my view of his writing with a point-by-point critique. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two very quick points for Stevertigo - we don't rank editors by either edit count or time active on the project so that's not very relevant and the "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." is the standard notification template so no foul there. One MAJOR point for Steve Quinn - admins are less likely to read long messages - can you summarise your problem here in one paragraph? Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exxolon, thanks for your suggestion. If I could I would. This complaint encompasses four articles, three talk pages, one user-page, and one essay page. Furthermore, there were three or four other editors involved. The admins are only human, like you and I, and it would be impossible, and time consuming, to sort through reams of editing, edting history, and talk page discussions. Hence, this compliant is like a road map. I use one article as an example of the editing pattern for all the articles involved. Then I briefly supply diffs for the other articles.  Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I interacted with user Stevertigo on where, against talk page consensus, and against adequately sourced material, the user was pushing (in article and on talk page) apparent original research onto the lead. The user's first edit on Time in physics was on 30-Jul-2010. At the point were Stevertigo had given up using the talk page (on (5-Aug-2010), he added his self-created nonce-template tag (Template:nonce), to the article, meaning essentially nothing more than "I don't like the lead and I want everyone to know." It was agreed on the talk page that this was highly inappropriate, so the tag was removed and the user notified. See also Nonce_introductions and this request. Both comments were ignored without a comment a few days later. A week later on 13-Aug-2010 the user made his most recent edit, essentially restoring his first edit as if nothing had happened before. This was prompty undone by Steve Quinn and nothing further happened. In my opinion this was an example of problematic editing, and/but I assumed that the problem was solved at this point. I had not looked at the user's contributions since then, although it seems to me that this string of recent edits to Physics could be problematic, in the sense that they seem to be altering properly sourced statements with personal POV's. DVdm (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding to my complaint: On August 30th, in the article Human, Stevertigo began another campaign of inserting his WP:OR . This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, . However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version . This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later . As can be seen with the following diffs, an Stertivigo edit wars with at least four other editors, continuing until September 3rd anyway. It then appears to begin again on September 9th. Please see edit history. Also, a corresponding discussion took place on the talk page. I will send a notice to the editors involved in that recent edit war, so they may comment on this ANI, if they so desire.  Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors involved, in a minor way, in Stevertigo's changes to Human, I have to say that his edits resulted, on balance, in an improvement of the article. I haven't looked at much of the wall of text above, so I will note that Stevertigo does appear to have a communication issue - his original changes to the Human article were not clearly understandable, and his explanations of what he desired were also not clear enough. Nonetheless, he was correct that there was a subtle POV problem with the article, and his actions have reduced that problem, albeit with some difficulty. I would very much counsel Stevertigo to communicate his ideas clearly; the best exposition of your thoughts will be as plain as a grocery list and therefore just as understandable. I don't know how much of the above is caused by communications issues, but I hope that Stevertigo's ideas are getting a fair hearing regardless - though, again, I have barely reviewed the large amount of material above; it may be that Stevertigo is completely off-base and I simply haven't yet seen it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this. The issue here is probably best described as a personal dispute between SQ and I, motivated largely by my spoken audio file I made to clarify how unclear and unacceptable his writing is (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My association with JimWae was largely at the Time article, which he has shepherded for years. My issue was that his intro was too simplistic and didn't talk about the subject in its most general terms: Continuum, change. We debated it and worked it out, and though less than what I wanted, the article now has a proper introductory sentence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Stevertigo has made extensive edits to Human generally against consensus and pushing his own, somewhat unclear, POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My issues with the human article largely dealt with its skeptical tone, which as Gavia noted above, amounted to a kind of systemic bias. My approach to that article began quite differently than the resulting compromise: I wanted a very philosophical introduction that made clear the distinction between human being and an animal creature/organism. This set up a rift between philosophy and scientific oriented editors. What resulted was that the article lead now includes a passage referring to "person." The human article had not even contained the world "person" until I came along. To further my point, I repeatedly beat people over the head with this basic fact that what they thought was a perfect article hadn't even made the connection between human and the idea "person." I continue to, apparently. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him.  But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him.  But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page.  Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him.  Then he'll get bored and go away.  Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program and become a good contributor or quit and go start a blog or some such.  So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, the gist of your comment is: You think I'm "nuts" and that I should be stalked article to article (by anyone of your noble constitution) and my edits should be reverted "without [..] any more than the minimum" of discussion on talk. What part of WP:TRI don't you understand? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding OR is a long-term problem with Stevertigo. I can honestly say I have never seen him do anything else. There have been several discussions about this, including Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, but it made no difference. He turned at Animal rights not long ago wanting to add his own opinions about sentience to the lead, though it was clear he had no knowledge of AR or issues surrounding sentience; no knowledge of the sources, no effort to find any; see here on talk. He kept the discussion going&mdash;a discussion entirely about his personal views, with not one reference to a source that I recall&mdash;from May 3 to May 24. His posts are often difficult to respond to, because it's not clear that they mean anything, e.g.

"First of all there is a clear definition of sentience, that does not consider simply that sense = sentience. Yours is an argument that belongs at the sentience article, perhaps. To say that a major fulcrum of an animal rights argument, that sentience equals sense (why not just say 'sensing'), and that all sensing creatures are sentient, is 'taken for granted' is simply a POV. Animal rights activists have had a difficult time at the sentience article as well, where they argue for a lower consciousness definition of 'sentience' that defies all other definitions that go beyond merely sensing. And yes, I understand there are some unusual scientists who argue for animal equality/personhood."


 * At some point we may need to bite the bullet and start applying blocks, or perhaps go to ArbCom, because he's harming quite a lot of articles. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. This editor has been a problem for years, and shows no signs of improving. An arbitration case may be the best option. AniMate 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been editing here since 2002. If someone has a problem with my edits, they can always put forth their best argument, and I am more than happy to put forward mine. If SQ and other's here want to sticky this ANI and keep it going, fine.
 * I've dealt with these kinds of things before (WP:ANI/SV), and I'll point out that these typically act as magnets for complaints of little substance, and ultimately end in failure to achieve their goal of limiting my editing. Ive said it before, I welcome any ANI, RFC, Medcom or Arbcom case regarding any specific edits I have made.
 * SlimVirgin, no stranger to criticism for her editing patterns, states that I am "harming quite a lot of articles." It should not be difficult for her to give us a list of articles which I have supposedly harmed.
 * As a final note, its usually quite clear that people who use the terminology of WP:DISRUPT such as "problematic editing" are using such terms as minced oaths in place of the word "troll" (now that "troll" is regarded as pejorative and unacceptable). Still, their arguments are generally baseless, and reduceable to namecalling. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had run-ins with Stevertigo elsewhere, leading to a protracted Arbcom case, and this seems to fit an ongoing pattern of disrespect and poor interactions, and rather quirky content positions - basically iconoclasm with fangs - summed up best in the observation that this is not 2002. Wikipedia is much more consensus-driven now and gives deference to rules, process, collaboration, and civility, not the idiosyncratic efforts of groundbreaking editors to shape the Internet to their vision.  If you're going to edit articles on important subjects like "time", "human being", and such, you have to respect that the many hardworking editors who regularly work on these articles have achieved a consensus as to the basic subject of the article, and not take it upon yourself to single-handedly reframe the article to fit your personal beliefs about the nature of things.  Whereas deciding what time is may have been appropriate in the early days, today a bold edit is to add news of a labor lawsuit to an article about a local restaurant chain.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know Wikidemon, that even though weve had our differences, I respect your opinion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the goodwill is nice. There's no disgrace in being an early trailblazer having some difficulty adjusting to a later era of trail-minders.  I would say the same of Jimbo.  His infrequent edits sometimes create interesting conflicts.  For what it's worth, here is the beauty article as of October, 2001.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I resisted commenting here for some time - Stevertigo will accurately say I stopped assuming good faith on his part some time ago. It did not start that way. When Tigo first started editing wikipidia I gushed good faith. That was a long time ago when he insisted that the article on antisemitism say that it is hatred of Arabs. everyone tried explaining that this was not so. This was long before NOR but his method of argument then was simply to use a dictionary definition that Arabic is a semitic language Arabs = semites, anti-semite = anti semites, anti-semite = antiarabs. Today tat would clearly violate NOR. After editors finally convinced him that the anti semitism article would not say that antisemitism = anti-arabs, he started to create articles on things that didn't exist except in his mind - editors had to explain to him what a "neologism" is and eventually we reached agreement that articles should not be on neologisms. A year or two ago I admit I lost all patience when he started editing articles on Hebrew names that indicated that he really did not understand Hebrew. His MO was: edit to install his opinion, wait to hear all the objections, and then start parroting the objections on the talk page, so editors who showed up late thought he knew what he was talking about. The fact is I have never seen him make a valuable contribution to an article. I admit/affirm right now that I am sure he has made valuable contributions to some article, it just is inconceivable to me that an editor can be active here for eight years without making at least a few good edits, if only the laws of chance apply some have to be right ... don't they? Nevertheless, the fact remains: Stevertigo is at best a nuisance and at worse an insidious POV pusher who thinks Wikipedia is his own little cafe table where he can bloviate with a couple of bottles of wine and a sophmore or two who might be seduced by his ignorant blather. I am not criticisimg Stevertigo, for all I know he is a swell guy, I am commenting only on his behavior. Once people catch on he just moves to another Wikipedia article. The more editors we attract, the sooner people at any given article figure out he is just making stuff up or really does not represent what he has read accurately. Alas, as we attract more editors, we also increase in articles, and there are more places he can run off to where no one knows his MO and he can push his POV or invent stuff again. I wish this would stop. But an univolved editor needs to do the right thing. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, he's plowed through animal rights and antisemitism topics as noted above, along with quibblings over Holocaust denial and the ever-charming Obama and socialism MfD. It's hard not to see a pattern here. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And Beauty and God and Time, and a host of other articles where he feels his personal opinions have to take priority. It has been going on for eight years, and I think we really need an admin to step up and be willing to act. I would suggest at a minimum a ban on changing leads; on adding content unaccompanied by a reliable source; and on adding sourced content that violates SYN. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think this calls for Arbcom. Tigo is a classic disruptive editor. That is not name calling (although Tigo recently attempted to rewrite that guideline ... gee, I wonder why?)  He boasts of having been the object of numerous complaints in the past, in his response to this thread.  He mistakes Wikipedia's ample patience for encouragement.  We should not mistake his smugness for righteousness.


 * Okay, I found the "neologism" my mind had blotted out. After days at the antisemitism talk page, with several knowledgable editors doing triple lutzes trying to explain again and again why his edits were what would later be called NOR, in error, and violating NPOV, Stevertigo wrote a whole new article here, on a term of his own invention, whether in spite or the product of a bizarre logic (HAL 0001 with some weird virus) I do not know. I invite - no, in this evening's loneliness, I beg - you all to take a stroll down wikiwackiness memory lane, and follow the link, and anostalgicize with me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That diff was from Februray 2003, before the Iraq War got started. It was also before Arbcom and even the Civility principle were established - something that Anthere and I cobbled together. Remember that the Civility principle came about in large part due to accusations of "anti-Semitism." I can recount more of that history if you like. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But your editing hasn't changed since then, which is the point of this and previous threads. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think my editing has improved. I think yours has also, as has Slrubenstein and others amongst us second-wave editors. Perhaps you can attempt to be objective, and give us a list of those articles which you say I have 'harmed' by editing them, along with a brief description of how I have 'harmed' them. Since this 'harm' is something you claim to be inherent to my editing in general, you can look at some of my most recent edits - in fact I will put forward an example: the War article lead is largely mine. You can compare the before and after versions and tell me what 'harm' I have done. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've been watching this unfold since SQ posted the link to here on Talk:Human, and I'm not really sure I have much worth saying since my impression of Stevertigo is pretty neutral... but I guess a neutral opinion will at least dilute all the negative some?

My interaction with Steve (hereafter meaning "Tigo", not SQ) has predominantly been over at Rights, where most of the talk page is our ongoing (on-and-off) discussion about revisions to the lede of that article from over the past few months. While I don't find Steve's contributions there to be especially productive, he hasn't been particularly disruptive either. His views do seem a little... I don't know if I'd say "idiosyncratic" since I'm not entirely sure what his views are, so I'll say "poorly formulated". He seems to strongly want to include something in the article, but it's often difficult to tease out what exactly that something is. But, he has been civil and respectful of my criticism of his edits on the talk page, and has not edit-warred about their inclusion, but rather refined his position and compromised, and the article has genuinely improved in some minor ways because of this process.

Over at Talk:Human I saw pretty much the same process play out, except that people's reactions to Steve were less patient than mine have been at Talk:Rights, and Steve seemed to respond understandably negatively to that more hostile reaction; and even that minor hubbub settled down quickly enough. So overall, I don't think he's a particularly problematic editor; any harm he does to articles is usually minor and easily corrected, and he seems to respond positively to people who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject calmly stating why his edits were reverted/adjusted and asking for clarification on what point he's trying to make.

The only real complaint I have is about his style of editing piecemeal (e.g. many edits to a single page in a row within a few minutes of each other, instead of previewing and rethinking the edits until they are to his liking), because I have my watchlist set to show all edits, not just the most recent, and that kind of editing floods my watchlist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Theres a wikien thread about "little edits or big edits" which relates to your issue. An interesting point someone made is that editing contentious articles is best done in small edits, with each edit labeled with a specific comment. Non-contentious articles can be edited in larger strokes. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied to this at your (Steve's) talk page since it's a bit tangential from the subject here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * comment I have only met with Stevertigo a few times at Talk:Language and Talk:Linguistics. My impression is that he is a very creative person with a very wide scope of interests. Unfortunately his creativity does at times conflict with presenting data in a conventional and neutral way as Stevertigo seems more interested in reinventing and redefining the topics he work on - a process I believe he refers to as "conceptualizing". This often leads to Stevertigo introducing neologisms and non-standard terminology into the articles with the result of obscuring the topic rather than clarifying it as I believe is his intention. It can also be difficult to reason with him using sources as he seems to rely more on his own reasoning and intuitions of how best to define and describe topics. I don't know if this merits administrative action, but I think it would at least be valuable if Stevertigo is informed that his editing styles alienates other editors and is not generally seen as conforming to the desired pattens of behaviour in encyclopedia writing, the aim of which it is to present existing knowledge in a conventional form - not produce or redefine existing knowledge - If he chooses to change his behaviour as a result of being told of how others view his it that will be even more valuable. ·Maunus· ƛ · 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Maunus' comments, and I'll note here that in retrospect, looking at his version of Language (most of the current version), I have to admit his version is quite strong and in certain ways an improvement over mine (viewable here). But I think the point should be made, and I think Maunus will agree, that the article would not be what it is without my critiques on the talk, and my proposed version which attempted to be as high-level as possible.
 * It is moreoften the case however that my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition, as looking at articles like Punishment will show. In contrast with what Steve Quinn is doing, which is to try and make his editorial critiques into behavioural ones (ie. this ANI), Maunus stood his ground and kept putting forth incrementally improved candidates until I conceded that his approach to the subject was superior. I was more than happy to leave that article alone for the simple reason that it had been improved, through process of debate and refinement, to a satisfactory level far above what had been there before. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't share that understanding of how the language article developed, and I certainly don't think that the lead version currently there is mostly my version. I also remeber trying to stand my ground but failing - I became so frustrated with your way of arguing that I left you and Andrew Lancaster still going at it and finally nothing came out of it and the lead that was there to begin with was left standing. Trying to read the debateon the talk page archive 3 I can't even read what happened because of the way your formatted the discussion by cutting statements and lead versions into pieces and organizing them by numbered points in a very odd system. To me it was a very alienating experience - even moreso than reading the Human article.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What about sanctions imposed at Arbitration/Active sanctions, in June 2010, which appears related to Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. To wit (as they say): " Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it because of these sanctions that you are so adamant about having discussions pertaining to neoligms, and non-starters, which turn out to be generally WP:OR and WP:POV? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No Steve, its it not. It is my general intent to improve the quality of articles I encounter out of my own interest. What I do is actually read articles, starting at the top and working my way down until I'm satisfied I've learned something about the subject. If its acceptably well written, I leave it alone. If its not, I edit it starting from the top. Remember it was you, along with JimWae, who followed me to the punishment article after we had resolved debates at the time article (a debate in which JimWae notably lost to me, and in which you were of occasional help). If you (and JimWae) had not followed me around to punishment - an article you had no prior interest in (in fact it had been months since anyone else had edited it) - we would not be having this discussion. Since you did follow me there, going out of the way of your normal editing pattern, I was fully in my rights to react to your reverts and removals. It was you and JimWae who chose to make that article a battleground, and it is quite clear that you did so to be adversarial towards me. This is what we call WP:HARASSment. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Animal Rights: . After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, . And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
 * Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): . The original has been restored.
 * Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010), and related discussion.
 * Holocaust denial: Here: . Reverted: on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts:  Conceptualization. 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo writes above that "my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition." This shows a lack of insight that explains why the problem persists. The fact is that all these topics (beauty, truth, rights, God) require research and education. No one can write about them off the top of his head, which is what Stevertigo tries to do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin - that is very insightful. I believe you have described the issue in a nutshell. Bravo. Too bad this does not become an A-HA! moment for him. He's too busy starting from the top down, etc., etc.. In any case, if I have a reccomendation for sanctions, where do I communicate this? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be the place to make suggestions and ask for community support. Or there's WP:AE for ArbCom enforcement if you want to focus on the 1RR sanction or whatever it was. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to step in, as a completely uninvolved non-admin who has never interacted with any of the participants in this thread, but who nonetheless reads AN/I avidly because it's entertaining. In my opinion you are going to find it almost impossible to effectively manage this editor. Any restrictions on editing the opening paragraphs of an article will have to include spelling corrections, punctuation etc, which would be draconian and wouldn't work. There would also be the problem of defining the opening paragraphs; everything before the list of contents, or including the list of contents and the first paragraph of the first section? The first paragraph of each section?
 * Animal Rights: Steve Quinn wrote: "After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image" - The caption she mentions related to the concept of anthropomorphization. SlimVirgin happens to be an animal rights enthusiast who at times allows her biases to inform her editing of articles. See for example her edits to the Person article, attempting to overgeneralize the concept of "person" to include animals. She relented at the person article, hence that introduction is largely my own. I decided to give it up at the animal rights article, and it still I think bears the marks of pro-animal rights POV.
 * Rights: As Pfhorrest said above, he and I are working at the rights article, and all of my edits to that article have been constructive and, to some degree or other, incorporated into the article. The current version is about 40 percent my own writing. SlimVirgin, once again, is talking about something she doesn't know anything about.
 * "Holocost denial" [sic]: This was a heated debate over a technical issue with the definition and scope of "The Holocaust." I found it interesting to note that until the sixties, "The Holocaust" was not confined in definition to just Jews, but it applied to another 11 million non-Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, albeit not in the same systematic way. I simply suggested that articles that refer to the Holocaust not assume the more common definition. I argued that on any article that mentions the Holocaust, it was POV to promote the narrower definition to the negation of 11 million other victims. Incensed editors reactionarily slandered me as a bigot, and began an ANI as a referendum on my editing. It went nowhere, and instead of talking about recent issues editors started listing edits from 2003 and earlier - readers can look at the closing comments at that ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Any restriction to inserting original research will flounder on the definition of original research. A total ban would struggle to find broad consensus; and unlike the chap last month who communicated only in ludicrous hacker shorthand - I forget the name, he supposedly had RSD - this editor (a) engages with his opponents (b) does so within the boundaries of civility.

Selective blocking from certain articles will not work because the scope of the editor's genius is vast; he will simply go elsewhere. A ban on reverting will not work because the editor can simply rewrite his opinions in broader or alternative terms and present them as a fresh edit, rather than a revert.

The ideal solution would be to give the editor a Wikipedia of his own that he can edit to his heart's content; perhaps the big articles on significant topics could have a /stevertigo subpage that is only visible or editable to himself. Perhaps that would keep him happy. It seems to me that this is his ultimate goal; a world of his own. But of course this is not possible. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo's problem editing is unfortunately not limited to opening paragraphs of either articles or sections. See, for example, this OR extravaganza, which he dumped in the human article with a cleanup tag. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

section break 1

 * Another comment. I just noticed this, where I asked SV about his using a second account . He replied that he doesn't use socks in the sense that I should be concerned with, and pointed to WP:SOCKS. To my two followup questions I never got an answer. DVdm (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To check how well the Obama-related sanctions have been working, I tried to check Stevertigo's edits since 2 August 2009, the date the amended sanctions went into effect. He's done almost no editing in Obama-related articles since then, so in that sense the sanctions worked, but it means we don't see how well he edits those articles within the constraints.  From 21 June 2009 to 2 August 2009, when wider sanctions were in effect, he made just a handful of 30 mainspace edits (compared to 180+/month averaged over the rest of 2009).  I also checked his most frequently edited articles in post-2 August 2009 period.  Those are: Punishment (95 edits), Time (61), Zoroaster (50), Being (47), Human (44), Universal reconciliation (31), Person (26), War (26), Freedom of religion (24), Animal rights (23), False messiah (23), Time in physics (23), Claims to be the fastest-growing religion (21), Euthanasia (21), Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) (21), Sin (20), Abstraction (18), Fundamental rights (18), Many-worlds interpretation (16), Assisted suicide (15).  I think it casts some light on the situation that these are mostly articles of rather wide philosophical scope, which can therefore be magnets for vagueness and OR. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most frequently edited pages (all namespaces) in past 90 days: Talk:Human (164 edits), Talk:Time (163), Talk:Punishment (113), Punishment (95), Arbitration/Requests/Case (86), Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (85), User talk:Stevertigo (72), Time (59), User:Stevertigo (51), Human (44), Talk:Many-worlds interpretation (43), Talk:Time in physics (31), Universal reconciliation (31), Talk:Jesus (30), War (26), Talk:Rights (25), Freedom of religion (24), Talk:Universal reconciliation (24), False messiah (23), Time in physics (23), User talk:Steve Quinn (22), Claims to be the fastest-growing religion (21), Talk:Dark matter (19), Talk:List of messiah claimants (18), Template:Universalism (17), User talk:Newyorkbrad (17), Many-worlds interpretation (16), Talk:Language (16), IPA/Introduction (14), Village pump (proposals) (14). 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm spending a little more time looking at the ~July 2009 edits during which Stevertigo was under wide 1RR restriction, because restoring that restriction has been proposed here by me among others. Stevertigo's editing slowed down a lot during that period, for whatever reason.  The edits I do see aren't all that great.  If anyone cares, another bogus template Skymine (deleted but appears to refer to WP:BSM, another neologism) is inserted in Social identity here. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions
Other comments are still welcome above. In this section, I would like to begin proposing sanctions that are considred appropriate to the issue. Feel free to propose sanctions, and others may agree or oppose. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The same disruptive editing has gone on for years (seven or eight years), without regard for guidelines and policies. This type of editing has created conflict, and edit wars, again for years. It has affected both editors and articles. I propose a total block from at least six months to one year. If when he returns Stevertigo picks up where he left off, then an indefinite block, would then be appropriate.  Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a block of any length for now to get the message home and prevent further damage. And when he returns I would suggest a ban on adding any content not accompanied by a reliable source that clearly supports the material he adds. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose that Stevertigo embark on an ambitious new project befitting of his big-picture thinking, with the resources and community support needed to pull it off. Further propose that Stevertigo and the rest of us do our best not to clash in parts of the encyclopedia where incrementalism is the norm.  Isn't there a way we can stay out of each other's way?  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest he voluntarily hold himself to WP:1RR, try harder to explain himself more clearly in discussions, and tone down the boldness just a tad. More than anything, the problem seems to be one of communication (based on my experience at Human). --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Response (to Wikidemon et. al.) - This is all really centered at the punishment article. Neither Steve Quinn nor Jim Wae showed any interest in that article until they lost a previous editorial debate with me (at the Time article), and followed me there. Its a clear case of harassment, and if we go to Arbcom that's one of the things they will find. I would prefer that Steve, Jim and I go back to the punishment article, assisted of course by others here, and work out our differences there. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo, unfortunately, your problematic editing at Time, sometimes misconstrued as simply being "bold", drew scrutiny of your edits at the Punishment article by me and at Universal Reconciliation, where you recently added unsourced and dubious content, and yet kept reverting to keep it in the article despite my revert and the ensuing discussion. Apparently, this is a continuing and relentless disruptive pattern of adding unsupported original research on your part, and which has been done repeatedly despite protests on numerous pages for you to take care not do so. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was nothing "problematic" about it. The article lacked a generalized introduction, and I produced one that was sourced, and was accepted by the majority. Those that argued against such an introduction lost the argument. As for universal reconciliation, that article has suffered for a long time due to ambiguities about its meaning and scope. User:In ictu oculi has at least a good sense of how it should look, eventually, and I leave that article to him. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're being punished for editing the punishment article? This is rich.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I figured this is rich too, the irony of it all. --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo, unless I overlooked something in the history of the article Time and talk, your "generalized" versions that you presented (and placed in the lede) were repeatedly incorrect and unaccepted as anyone following that article could attest, so your claim that any were somehow sourced and supported on talk is a distortion. The only lede version that actually put your issue to rest was the sourced version I placed on the article, as pointed out by SQ at the beginning of this thread. If you have a problem with any lede, start a discussion by all means, but to repeatedly thrust unsupported content into article space to "fix" such problems can be disruptive, and is the reason why you have drawn attention elsewhere and here, as well as possible sanctions. Your "opponents" are only of your own making, and this is supposed to be a collaborative effort that is respectful of policies and editors and is not a battleground of wills, as you continue to frame this. --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Modocc, the version people eventually agreed with was a single sentence that came before the previous introductory sentence, which was sourced to the American Heritage Dictionary entry. Even though that was the only dicdef, out of ten dicdefs cited, that mentioned "continuum" and "change", it was better by far than the others, because it was high level. I did not approach that article adversarially. JimWae had been sitting on that article like an egg and took undue offense at every suggestion to generalize the lede in the way I was eventually successful in doing. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss the content of the "Punishment" article. This is not a content dispute. That is how a previous ANI got sabatoged, and the editors lost their focus. There were sanctions imposed on Stevertigo. and the other editors, but nothing like a block (recieved a two week block for disruptive editing). I will have to review it to see what the outcome was. However, keep in mind that is how a previous ANI veered off course, and Stevertigo would like to take us all there. For his part Stevertigo cannot back up a word he is saying with diffs that would demonstrate anything other than inserting WP:OR into any of the articles mentioned in this entire thread. The issue is his WP:OR vs. WP:V. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We were talking about the time article, Steve. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) Stevertigo, far more than one dictionary mentioned the continuous nature of time, and a continuum is a gradual change. Thus the current lede is supported by most of the sources, but as far as I can tell, none of your suggested revisions and arguments prior to that addressed these sources properly and instead your edits were focused on your own misguided conceptualizations. I consider the lede improved now and you were instrumental in drawing the attention needed to accomplish that, nevertheless, that does not excuse the disruptive editing then or elsewhere as pointed out time and again. As such, everyone knows that this wiki is ripe for improvement, however it should be done with the available sources and not OR. That you continue to sidestep this problem of unsourced OR is in itself a sign that you still do not understand the consequences and harm done to both content and the editing environment, even if only temporary in either case, and why sanctions should be imposed. --Modocc (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take your good advice to heart, and discard the accusation of original research. Original writing is not original research, and in fact its required of us. If an editor parrots the sources, often what happens is their writing is a mess. On the issue of CITE, some here rejected my edits to the human article, even though it was sourced in twelve different places. So, to the accusation of OR, I say 'false.' If people want to make this a referendum, I welcome a formal inquiry. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, at the very least, a formal ban, as suggested by SlimVirgin, on Stevertigo to not add significant content on any articles without supporting sources, as well as a formal 1RR limit.  --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A "formal ban" would require going to Arbcom. Its not difficult to convince people of an informal ban, but it would lack the legitimacy or standing of a formal ban. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If consensus decides for a block that is legitamte and has standing. 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't; the Community has imposed plenty of formal bans without ArbCom, and wouldn't hesitate to do the same here if it became necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we do not have to go to ArbCom. Stevertigo boasts he has been here since 2002, don't you think he knows about community bans?  Of course he knows.  The very fact that he pops up making this silly claim that we have to go to ArbCom is a good example of the kind of disruptive editing that justifies the ban. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose a complete ban on editing, but perhaps some kind of restriction or warning enforced by threat of temporary ban, e.g. after any one revert of an edit, consensus must be established on talk before any further edits to that article, else a temporary ban? (Perhaps with exceptions for typos/spelling and obvious vandalism?) Steve already seems to behave within those bounds where I've interacted with him, so I don't think it would be a problem for him to do so elsewhere if he hasn't been there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a pretty bad WP:RANDY issue going on here. Stevevertigo's edit cited by Mgiganteus1 was quite recent and is just ridiculous.  I leave the question of bans to people more knowledgeable about the problem, but (as a separate suggestion), mentorship might be helpful if some qualified editor has any interest in taking it on.  Another suggestion is to expand the existing arbcom restriction from Obama articles to all articles, as Arbcom originally considered (see  "superseded remedy").  Steve Quinn's edits to Time are not perfect either ( should use secondary sources instead of a dictionary, and should leave out the trademark symbol per WP:MOSTM if the dictionary is cited), but those are minor quibbles compared to Stevertigo's serious issue.  Note to Stevertigo: formal bans are issued at ANI all the time.  All bans can be appealed to arbcom, but they don't have to be issued by arbcom.  71.141.90.138 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that "science" section was proposed by someone on the talk page, and I cobbled that together in 5 minutes just as a way to start the section with something. In no way did I expect that material to endure, just to put something on the page.
 * I don't know what you mean by "Randy in Boise" except to say it must be a pejorative. How much such pejoratives mean I will leave to the experts, but seeing as how you and I have never interacted before, such a comment is uncalled for and must be regarded as a DBAD violation. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That WP:RANDY is a perfect description. Thanks for that User:71.141.90.138. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When you read what I have to say, please keep in mind that I don't watch any of those articles other than human, so everything I say is taken from the perspective of someone whose interactions with him are those you can see in the history and talk page there. If you check those, we've got it under control.  His gunk gets reverted almost instantly and the article has improved slightly in how clear it is about things like it's relationship with the article person.  Also, it gets more eyes on the article, which is a good thing.  I think if certain others would just not drag out conversations with him past the point of realizing you're not talking to a rational person, then he's not dangerous to the article.  Something less than banning him might be better, just a mentor to keep an eye on him and point out his logic problems in a short way, as I try to do, would be better if possible.  Wikipedia can handle post-modernist babblers, no problem.  At least the article Human can.  If anyone wants to "mentor" him to see how other articles I don't watch react to him, that's not as harsh as banning to my mind.  You can't fool Wikipedia when it's well-watched.  Chrisrus (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I was successful at getting "person" inserted in the lede - something you say is a "slight" improvement. Regarding the human article, I like what Maunus just said on the talk page about its current state: "I just came by here from the ANI thread and took a look at the article: A very alienating experience. Seriously. It looks likle the article was written by Aliens. I don't think I can think of a better way to do it right now though." Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true, we noticed that; kinda wierd, isn't it. I describe it as a report by Dr. Phlox for the Denobulans.  It's just the way an encyclopedia about humans ends up sounding. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose: a revert restriction of some kind (1RR/wk/article, unless reverting actual vandalism perhaps). From reviewing (don't think I've ever spoken to the chap) the thing that is causing the major problem is edit warring to keep the unsuitable/unsupported portion of his edits in articles. If he could stop doing that, it would be helpful.  Others can then evaluate that portion of his edits that are actual improvements, as it does seem that some are.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)(Since Jehochman asked - completely uninvolved - not edited any of the articles in current dispute and cannot recall ever having discussed anything with this editor.  I based this on looking at the evidence--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Propose an indefinite block/community ban. He has been around since 2002 and his pattern has not changed at all in eight years, despite every other editor asking him to change and explaining why.  He does not do research, his "conceptual" approach is a euphamism for his substituting his own personal logic for research, it violates NOR, it violates NPOV, the web of his interests have some clear focal points that suggest a mild but clear POV-pushing campaign.  He is a bad example for newbies and suggests we have practically no standards.  All evidence suggsts to me that Stevertigo deserves his own blog.  No evidence suggests to me that he belongs at Wikipedia.  Tigo, have a blog, and may you prosper in the blogosphere.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Harsh but fair. It really is time Stevertigo learned, but he doesn't even seem to understand the problem. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block as in preceding proposal. While an initial three month block might be tried, we have ample evidence that only an agreement for this editor and Wikipedia to part company will be effective. Johnuniq (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Not sure of an indef but if that is the way this leans I wouldn't be too broken up over it. The last time it was a 2-week timeout, so perhaps one more escalation (1-2 months) before the big barrels hit?  I don't know what this place was like in 2003, perhaps it was more of a blank canvas for original thought and concepts.  If it was, it is not anymore, and this user is either unwilling or unable to play well with others. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't support any sanctions that involve loss of editing privileges for Stevertigo - I do think he is here to improve the encyclopedia. I'd support 0RR or mentorship if that was proposed. If Stevertigo were to wish a mentor to help him communicate better and move towards a kind of behaviour that is more within project norms, I'd be willing to attempt it. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does Stevertigo acknowledge that he is doing anything wrong at all? He continues to defend his bahaviour. What good would a mentor do? --JimWae (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he is actually receiving criticism gracefully in a few of the exchanges above (when its offered in the right spirit), but of course mentoring only works if the proposed mentee agrees that he would benefit from a mentor and takes menotirng seriously as a way to grow as an editor.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can believe he's here to improve the encyclopedia but he may also have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Whether it's deliberate or not, he is unusually hard to reach. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose 0RR + mentoring. I've encountered Stevertigo here. He inserts himself here pretending to have more expertise than he in fact has. In itself that wasn't much of a problem (it happened there only once), but this AN/I discussion shows that there is a systemic problem with this editor. The mentoring agreement should be a flexible topic ban. The mentor allows Stevertigo to edit; in case of problems he/she can demand that he not edit certain topic areas. The 0RR can be relaxed for specific topic areas if the mentor feels that this is possible. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The only way mentoring would be useful is if Stevertigo were required to submit every edit in every namespace to said mentor and require approval before proceeding. Anyone want to take that on? *crickets*. Ergo, banning is the only real option here. → ROUX   ₪  20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I appreciate the fact that some here feel like I've stepped on their toes over the years. As I have done before, I apologize for any errors of my own fault. I appreciate Steve Quinn's request (on my talk page) that I be conciliatory here, and will consider any suggestions he has. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good move towards reconciliation would be to also recognize that peoples feelings of stepped-on toes is due at least in part to aspects of your behavior that you can (and hopefully will) change so that they will not get that feeling again. Secondly stepped-on toes is not the biggest issue that is being laid out here, rather that the important concern is that people find your approach to writing articles to be detrimental to the encyclopedia. That is the concern that should make you concerned and ask yourself, 'what is it I am doing wrong?' and 'how can I change that?'. We have an encyclopedia to build and you have an important role to play in that project if you are willing to take advice from your peers when they express concerns about your approach.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, and hope that they can be sorted out in arbitration. The fact is that Steve Quinn and JimWae followed me from the time article, where they lost the argument, to the punishment article, where their interest was not in the article itself, but in my editing. This meant:
 * that their issues with my editing were premeditated, coming from the time article,
 * that their interest in the article was fabricated, being interested more in me,
 * that because their interests were not in the article itself, their edits to that article were bound to be sloppy (as one can hear in the spoken audio version above)
 * their adversarial approach toward me on that article was harassment.
 * I respect the constructive opinions of everyone here, and will take any good advice to heart. But they were wrong to be adversarial and make our article disputes a personal matter, and other disgruntled editors from my past are wrong to come here looking for late retribution for past encounters. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask the person above to sign the post. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested there is a request for arbritration initiated by someone else - Arbitration/Requests  Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. It was initiated by me. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, if the guy has been here for eight years and no one can recall a single constructive edit he's made, why is allowing him to stay even up for discussion? How will the project benefit from his continued participation? AGF has a limit, and it is surely less than eight years of disruptive editing. -- Lord  Pistachio  talk 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about edits, but I know at least three times where Stevertigo has identified problems with an article in that it was either badly written or did not do full justice to the concept it was treating. I think that is valuable.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because most editors are more concerned with making constructive edits, & not with what other editors do? (I consider that a good thing, for the record. No one appreciates a busy-body looking over their shoulder.) If you define "constructive edit" as excluding comments on talk or policy pages, & WikiGnoming, then I admit that I wold be hard-pressed to come up with a constructive edit for countless editors whom I consider useful & vital to the project. And I write all of this without it being intended as a defense of SV's behavior, just an explanation why he's been tolerated for so long. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the WP:RANDY comment further up. I just looked at a random sample of 10 of Stevertigo's last 500 mainspace edits (as of earlier today).  I would say 7 or 8 were constructive, 1 or 2 had good intentions but minor problems, and 1 (the second-to-last on the list) had significant problems (it was in the context of a small but bogus edit war).  I don't want to take up a lot of space with a detailed analysis, but the edits I looked at were:          .  From this I would say the majority of Stevertigo's edits are constructive and useful, though I haven't seen any that I'd consider great (e.g. edits that add high-quality content of substance, preferably with good sourcing).  Of course this sample is inconclusive about the totality, since the issue (according to SLR) is a long-term pattern of lower-intensity disruption.  As an outsider never involved in those articles, I mostly see cluelessness in Stevertigo's interaction style with other editors.  His edit warring today over the name of the arb case he filed is especially self-discrediting.  67.119.2.101 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments. As far as the RFAR goes, it comes in large part due to the voting here, being based largely in hearsay and old grudges, in support of an "indef block or community ban." You on the other hand did something novel which was to familiarize yourself with my recent editing history. I greatly appreciate academic honesty whenever I see it, and I will take your cautions regarding the RFAR to heart. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support indef block or community ban. I found Slrubenstein's argument above to be convincing.  I believe it's possible that Stevertigo has been here so long that he has not kept up with the difference between the kind of material which might have been considered acceptable in creating an encyclopedia ex nihilo, but is no longer acceptable in shaping and molding a more mature product. (For instance, I recently came across this – not by Stevertigo – the very first state of the article on The Bronx; it stood for quite a while, but would be reverted immediately today.) His apparent inability to recognize that times have changed, and to adjust his editing to match, is an indication of a certain lack of Wikpedian competence. The editor should be blocked or banned until such time as he shows an appreciation for the policies and content requirements that have developed in the 8 years since he first signed on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you, someone whom has never encountered me in any editorial issue before, or any issue before period, come to the conclusion that I need to be banned? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, a quick look at the title of this section will verify that I am not the subject of this inquiry, you are. Rather than engaging in this kind of combatitive remark, you'd be best advised to put your energy into providing the community with some answers to the questions that have been raised about your behavior, something which you have, so far, managed to avoid doing.  (Besides, if we had had previous editorial issues, I presume you'd be discounting my opinion because I'm "involved"; but here, you want to discount it because I'm not involved.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And SV: this is rather nonsensical, don't you think? Since when do we evaluate editors on the basis of their edit counts?  And what do edit counts have to do with one's ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current issue is the editorial debate at punishment. Any wrongdoing on my part there has yet to be discussed or established here. It is precisely because of the generic focus on my "behavior" here, complete with anecdotes from seven years ago, that I've had to take recourse at RFAR. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, your statement is totally incorrect, and rather disconcerting, in fact. The issue under discussion here is not the editorial dispute at Punishment, but your behavior, which is why blocks and bans are under consideration.  Please stop attempting to derail redirect the conversation.  As I told you on your talk page, your attention would be better put towards making explanations to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) Its quite easy to turn everything into a behavioral dispute, let ghosts from years past creep in with info, and take sides. Its much harder to look at things as an editorial dispute, and then regard the behavioral issues with neutrality. That's why I was one of the first to suggest the formation of an Arbcom back in 2003, and that is why, regardless of all the dirt you can find on me, I have referred to matter to Arbcom. This ANI is still at its core an editorial dispute between I versus SQ and JW, otherwise its just a bunch of senseless accusation. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose 4 month block Somehow Steve has to get the message that it is inappropriate to insert his own unsupported "conceptualizations" into wikipedia articles. I see no indication from him that he will not continue to insert his "conceptualization" (often incomprehensible) into lede paragraphs & lede sentences. I see no indication he sees any need to have use sources, nor to not misapply "supposed" sources. Some community response to his behaviour is called for. Making someone else responsible for him is not the answer - Steve needs to take responsibility for himself, so a block of some significant duration seems to be the most appropriate. If, during that 4 month block, he expresses a sincere intent to change his behaviour, the ban could be shortened AFTER other respondents here have had input. --JimWae (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support 4 month block  SV's most recent behaviors do not indicate SV has changed his positon to any degree. I agree a community response is called for. I support a four month block with the above perscribed conditions. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * comment I think a 4 month block inadequate. I might support a four month block IF, upon completion of the block, someone took the responsibility of mentoring Stevertigo.  Perhaps Maunus, who raised this possibility.  Blocks and other actions are NOT punitive, they are rehabilitative.  A block will give him time to study with some detachment how other editors work effectively, but mentoring is also necessary to help ensure he can function productively after the block ends. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions tally
Other comments are still welcome in any of the above sections.

Below is a tally of the proposed sanctions, supported, or opposed.

Should the community impose sanctions, or should the community simply allow an administrator to impose sanctions (based on the ANI thread). Please weigh in. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Total block (for a length to be determined) - 10 support;  4 oppose
 * I list the editors in support of a block for some length of time. User:Modocc, User:SlimVirgin, User:Steve Quinn, User:Slrubenstein, User:Johnuniq, User:Tarc, User:Roux, User: Beyond My Ken, User:JimWae, User:JzG says harsh but fair.


 * Editing restriction - 2 support
 * Mentoring - 2 or 3 support
 * 0RR - 1 or 2 support
 * voluntarily hold himself to WP:1RR, try harder to explain himself more clearly in discussions, and tone down the boldness just a tad

Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the community has full rights to impose sanctions, and when determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not "support a temporary ban with caveats"; I oppose any ban at this time, and suggest in its place, if any action is necessary, editing restrictions/0RR backed by threat of a future temp-ban if he violates those restrictions. --Pfhorrest (talk)


 * Note that User:Pfhorrest is referring to an error in the tally above (no negatives?) and yet it was removed without indication, leaving Pfhorrest's comment orphaned. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, I should have left a comment on this page, which acknoweleged the tally for Pfhorrest was moved from support to oppose. There is, however, a comment in the edit summary that reflects this. But, yes, a message here would have been nice.  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other issues
I feel that there are still several other issues, which have not been addressed.
 * One is the 1RR restriction imposed as a result of the Request for Arbritration/Obama articles. This a sanction for edit-warring. The limitation is to one revert per page, per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. (here) and (here scroll down the page). If this applies to articles in general then this 1RR rule has been violated.
 * Steve Quinn, the arb remedy says very clearly "Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles". The 1RR doesn't apply to non-Obama-related articles.  The wider version under "superseded remedy" is, as it says, superseded. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sheer number of accusations that I violated a prior Arbcom ruling had almost convinced me. Thank you for getting the facts straight. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, I am not convinced. I do acknowledge that the IP 67.119... has demonstrated a high degree knowledge about how Wikipedia works. I still intend to inquire as to whether or not this is a general sanction, once the un-involved Admin is available. The available documents on this matter are confusing (imho). And I don't which is the current sanction, to tell the truth. However, the fact that you (Stevertigo) didn't think the sanction was in place says to me that it probably wasn't.   Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The other issue, brought up by User:DVdm is sock puppetry. DVdm asked for Stevertigo's legitmate reason for using a sock puppet and recieved no reply. Link here.  Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't use sock puppets. I may occasionally use a different name on Commons or another project, and if I forget to log out, my edits here will have that name. That's what happened here. Your deep concern for my alleged sockpuppetry should be commended. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I ran a checkuser and I'm following up with Stevertigo and ArbCom about any use of undisclosed accounts used by Stevertigo. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another issue is the "NONCE" tag, which was applied to the Time in physics article . This is a tag or template which has no standing on Wikipedia. It is a made up tag. The tag points to an essay WP:NONCE. An editor, User:DVdm removed the tag from above the lede of the article, with a message on Stevrtigo's talk page . Both User:DVdm and I were misled into believing that this was an authentic Wikipedia tag. The WP:NONCE page is an essay, authored and edited by Stevertigo. The tag is still at the bottom of the page.  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I see other problems - how can you get a word like nonce and use it in a novel way, make an essay and apply it to and then make a template to tag articles in namespace? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to find out which articles are tagged with this -tag? DVdm (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * DVdm: Currently, there do not seem to be any articles tagged with that template, but you could have seen which ones were by going to Template:Nonce and clicking on the "What links here" button. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a comment here about this "Nonce" essay - that it is now up for deletion. In any case, yes it is now up for deletion. Is there a link to the deletion discussion or this up for "speedy" ? Steve Quinn (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_26
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nonce introductions
 * 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment concerning uninvolved admin section below Only because some emphasis is being placed on Stevertigo's long tenure with the project, I think it only fair to point out that his time has not been without controversy, since he was the subject of an ArbCom case, as a result of which he was de-sysoped, and is currently subject to an ArbCom-imposed editing restriction.  If his time with the project is a mitigating factor -- and it should be -- these should also be considered as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may, I would like to repeat my general apology to all concerned. I have been contributing here for eight years in good faith to the mission of Wikimedia's projects, and I understand that everyone else here does as well. But please do not fault me for not accepting all the accusations thrown my way. I appreciate the good work that Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and others do. But this ANI should be a way to solicit help in resolving an editorial dispute (at the punishment article), and should not be some general kind of referendum on my so-called "behavior". Again, I express my wish that we resolve this matter without going toward extremes, or by expressing any more bad faith than we already have. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)As long as you refuse to acknowledge that the community has moved well past the specific editorial dispute on the Punishment article to a general appraisal of your editorial behavior overall, your "apologies" are hardly going to ring true. After all, you can't apologize for what you don't even admit is under discussion!! This matter is not going to be resolved on the basis of one article, it is only going to be resolved on the basis of your recognition of the community's concerns, and some assurance from you that you understand those issues and are resolved to change your way of editing.  Failing that, the likelihood is that there's going to be some kind of sanction against you, either from this discussion or from the ArbCom case you opened.  It may be a topic ban, or a reversion restriction, or a block or a ban, but there's clerarly going to be something come out of this, and you will not make it go away by waving your hands and pretending the discussion is about something else. Please show us that you understand what is happening here, and that you are willing and able to deal with the problems that are being brought to your attention, and stop maneuvering around trying to manipulate the situation to your advantage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, you said earlier that you based much of your "ban" vote solely on the recommendations of Slrubenstein. Is that true? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that, and, again, this is not about me, this is about your overall behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You said you found "Slrubenstein's arguments above to be very convincing." Given that you and I have never run into each other, I took this to mean that much of your view was shaped by Slrubenstein. Note that his comments do not come in a vacuum. Slrubenstein on occasion has a problem with making pejorative remarks toward me, and I was wondering if these would be "very convincing" in a different way. Do these kinds of things contribute to his "overall behavior?" And does not his "overall behavior" have something to do with how you regard his opinions? Does the fact that I did not pursue formal action against him mitigate your concept of my "overall behavior"? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I have never had any problem at all making pejorative remarks towards you. I have however criticized your editing whenever it has violated NPOV or, more often (and almost universally) V and NOR.  As you admit, you have been doing this for eight years.  Fortunately I am able to describe a sonsistent pattern to the many who have not been around as long (and yet somehow have contributed far more than you).  But I think I am just summarizing; many others have commented on different examples of your tendentious editing and contempt for research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (cutting in) I have you on record referring to me as an "antisemite", among other things. Such pejoratives cannot be tolerated. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Stevertigo: I suggested last night on your talk page that you should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- have you had a chance to do that yet? If not, you should probably do so. I don't believe the community is interested in your attempt to probe my thought processes – except in so far as they may shed light on your behavior and your attitudes – the community has raised questions about your editing behavior, which you have managed to dodge and weave around, instead of providing straght-forward answers. In as much as your attempt to muddy the waters by making this about me, rather than about you, is a distraction, I'm going to withdraw from the discussion, in the hope that you will take the opportunity to do the right thing, stop maneovering and manipulating, and answer those questions. Given your comments in the past 24 hours, I'm not optimistic about that happening, but perhaps you'll see your way clear to doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand you want me to be conciliatory. I appreciate that, and I am. But consider also my point of view: One day SQ, JW and I are working together on an article - agreeing even on a merge between my version and theirs - and the next I find they've opened up an ANI page. At the same time, they don't want to confine the discussion to the article at hand, they want to open up a referendum on my "behavior" at which any old editor can interject with commentary, tidbits from years ago, or support for some draconian measure. Consider all that. Now tell me what must I do to prove that I am sufficiently conciliatory? How can I do so in such a way that would overcome the negative votes from those editors who are here only for one purpose only. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being conciliatory would include 1. recognizing that aspects of your behaviour has estranged a rather considerable number of editors with whom you need to be collaborating. 2. stating that you will take steps to change your behaviour to minimize this problem in the future. 3. stopping trying to defend or justify your past behaviour and attacking other editors. ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator reviews of Stevevertigo community responses
I am creating this section for uninvolved administrator reviews of the Stevevertigo community discussion above. Please see WP:AE for examples of how this is typically used. Please do not comment here if you are either involved (and commenting above counts) or are not an administrator (though, you are welcome to comment above if you are not an admin).

On first review, Steve Quinn seems to have counted accurately and established that there is a numerical ( 10 to 3 ) support and qualitative support for some sort of block or ban, plus support for other alternate sanctions as second or third choices. We have had 72ish hours for the discussion to run if I am counting correctly. Under our normal community sanction process any uninvolved administrator could now step in and decide the consensus.

With that said - this is a longtime contributor, we didn't have that many people respond, and there seems to be some significant dissent as to whether Stevevertigo's contributions are hopelessly and irredeemably not OK within the Wikipedia framework or whether some form of limitations or mentoring or some such may preserve his ongoing positive contributions while mitigating or eliminating ones seen to be negative.

I am creating this section for uninvolved administrators to consider and work on seeing if we can determine a good way to resolve the question of irredeemable or not.

Pursuant to that question, I have asked Steve on his talk page to comment on his thinking behind one of his recent article forks ( Human being forked off a former redirect for Human ). If there are other examples people would like to focus clarifying discussions with Steve on, please post the articles or diffs (recent preferred, 3 months or less) which you think illustrate problems with Steve's behavior. We've seen some of those above, which Steve has partly discussed above. If uninvolved admins want to follow up more on any of those, please feel free to list them.

I am aware that another uninvolved admin could chose to short-circuit this given that we've passed the minimum threshold for doing so; I would like to request that people inclined to do that give us some time to work on the questions first. He's been here for years and years. If you feel that he's doing something disruptive right now, feel free to issue a short term sanction while we ponder longer ones. If not, more discussion here will not hurt. He's not setting the encyclopedia on fire. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevevertigo response to uninvolved administrator section

 * Your rational approach is appreciated. To comment a bit more in detail, the human being stub I created in the context of editing the human article, as a workspace for a philosophical rewrite of the article. I did not suggest it as a fork, nor did I expect it to stand for more than a few days, rather I kept it as an example of what an article on that subject might look like if taking a general, philosophical approach (Wikipedia is a work in progress). The human article is not necessarily about human beings but about the human species as a scientific concept. One editor remarked that reading that article was like reading something written by aliens. I happened to agree: Taking an anthropological view of the subject human only gets us so far. For example, the article didn't even mention the word person before I came along - a fact which alone was enough to discredit the views of editors who had rejected my proposed changes outright, or else had considered the article to be pristine. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(comments made originally at GWH's talk page) You wrote at the ANI: "Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here." - You make a good point. What I meant to say is if there were any who held the view that my suggestions were without merit, the one fact alone (that "person"/"personhood" was not in the human article) amply negated such views. BTW, I appreciate the effort you put into a fair review of the ANI. Now that Arbcom appears to be taking the case, I am sure that Arbcom will appreciate your general take on things. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (postdated)

Closing action
I recommend closing this thread without action, now that a request for arbitration has been filed, and it looks likely to be accepted. The volume of evidence here is substantial, and not amenable to the drive-by reviews that matters typically receive on this board. Careful consideration of the facts is needed. Rather than placing a ban, and then having it appealed to ArbCom for review, it makes more sense to let the request for arbitration proceed. Stevertigo, you would be wise not to edit the articles cited above until your case has been heard. Any sort of questionable editing while the matter is under active review would likely damage your position.

Somebody else can hat this if there are no objections. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Object. I actually read this entire thread as a fairly clear consensus that 1) Stevertigo's general behaviour is not acceptable, and 2)a rough consensus that Stevertigo should be subject to some form of sanctions with various opinions on what wavering widely.  Stevertigo's requesting of an ArbCom case is an attempt to short-circuit the ability of this forum to apply sanctions as the Community sees fit.  The consensus here is strong enough to authorise an uninvolved administrator to impose sanctions, with some discretion as to the exact terms.  Being uninvolved, I would be willing to impose a four month block with a 1RR restriction after that, as a reasonable and even-handed reading of the Community's will.  Many times we need the Arbitration Committee, but in this matter, their taking this matter is not required if we can handle it as neutral administrators. Courcelles 05:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to proceed, if that's what you think is right. ArbCom is going to review the matter in any case, I think.  I have misgivings about this thread, and am unwilling to apply a sanction myself.  Your block will be undone so that Stevertigo can participate in the case, so I am not sure what the point of that is.  Perhaps instead you should ban him from editing any pages except for the arbitration case pages and his own talk page.  Jehochman Talk 06:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion should not be closed without the minimum that the Community clearly came to a consensus on - indefinite revert restriction. It can be that (1) he is indefinitely prohibited from making any "revert" (as defined in the context of WP:3RR). This was proposed by users who opposed the ban.
 * Arguably, the Community came to a consensus on more than the revert restriction, but how much more is what needs to be decided. In such a case, what would be applicable is: (2) a ban (of a specified duration) and indefinite 1RR (that is, he is required to discuss all content reversions and may not make more than 1 revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism).
 * Either 1 or 2 needs to be enacted before this is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Courcelles is reading the community will correctly. Regarding the block the community will appears to be very clear in the Proposed sanctions section, and appears to be supported by the discussion before that. I don't see "indefinitely prohibted from making any revert" as being a clear communication of the community will in this thread. Throughout the thread, I think the clearer indication is for the 1-RR restriction, with the block. Furthermore, the block plus 1-RR is ruling on the side of caution. In other words, if it turns out that the block plus 0-RR was the better decision, then change it to 0-RR. Finally, I think that 1-RR gives Stevertigo enough breathing room to prove himself one way or the other, after the 4 month block. I think Courcelles is within his permitted discretion in this matter, and should proceed. Of course Stevertigo can communicate "reasons for unblock" as part of due process, throughout the duration of his block. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem regarding the 1-RR vs. 0-RR. When I first saw 0RR, I didn't know what it was, so I just copied it to be accurate. I think if we look at "editing restrictions - 2" these probably include 1-RR. The reason for the 1-RR at the bottom of the tally is because of a desire again, to be accurate. This was a complete statement, which I thought merited its own mention, because it appeared to be unique - in other words, to express it as part of the community will - in an effort to not leave this out. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I stepped back when Arbcom started to step in, but where my thought processes were leading ...
 * Short summary of my opinion: Real problem, community patience fading, but not entirely gone.
 * Generally, Courcelles has the same opinion I was developing. I am somewhat concerned that the community consensus is not ideal under our standards for those, but I think that the lack of unqualified support for Steve says something.
 * I think the community put on the table restriction sets that are not completely out of whack under the circumstances, and Courcelles read that reasonably. I was actually wondering if we could step outside the box a bit, though - Steve is not always disruptive on every article he participates in.  He tends to get so in waves, where something about a particular article becomes problematic and he then causes a bunch of problems / gets a new bunch of people angry at him.
 * I was wondering if we could set up a sanction of some sort where any admin could topic-ban Steve from a given article for up to one week upon evidence that his interaction there had become disruptive, with topic ban duration escalation from one week if disruption resumed after that ban was over.
 * There were some explicit comments that "he'd find new places and go disrupt them" without a ban or indef block, but I think that if we get something on the record that says that if disruption happens in new places, it's OK for an admin to just remove him from that place without having to go back to the community or other admins for review (though appeal would always be available). That gives admins a discretionary sanction that would mean something, and be effective on the specific trouble topics as they develop.  And would allow Steve to continue participating in areas he wasn't causing problems in.
 * I think that a generic 1RR or possibly 0RR is also not unreasonable. A medium duration block is also not unreasonable, but I'm less enthusiastic about that... It may be necessary, but I don't think it's a great answer here.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize (in advance) for the legnth of my response below. Hopefully it will turn out to be a reasonable length. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with George's assessment. that Stevertigo is not always disruptive on every article, he edits . True, I think he has done some copy editing in some articles, he placed a very good image in the lede for the Light article, but these are outweighed by the continual disruption of other articles in 2010. And the disruption of articles in 2009. How far back do you want to go? There is the list of articles in this thread. There is also at least one other not mentioned, because it didn't get the far - that is Paradigm. I believe that stopped because any further insertion of WP:OR into that article would have been too close to this ANI. Also, for some reason his last OR edit was ignored for a time. In any case, I can name five articles which he disrupted in the same time period, Time, Time in physics, Punishment, Paradigm (not as severe), and Universal reconciliation.  He also started the same pattern on the Physics article. However, that may have been short circuited because the ANI came directly right after that. And if my chronology is right, before that was Human, Animal rights, and Rights. Was it just last year he was a situation at the Holocaust denial article? Then there was the edit warring on Obama articles. As was pointed out earlier these are top tier articles (so to speak) - signifigant as related to our culture. Simple copy editing, and or any of that type of editing has no comparison.


 * OK I didn't see this before - apparently in the 2009 ANI he was sanctioned, and the claim that it failed to find any error appears to be incorrect. He specfically recieved a two week block for using Wikipedia as a battleground. It says (near this decision) that ANI was included in the assessment of batteground. The acutal desicion is here, followed by more discussion, and then invitation for review. In any case, the block log supports this . Also according to the block log, and this 2009 ANI discussion there were previous blocks. Some have been mentioned in this  2010 ANI. But other previous blocks have not been mentioned. Besides the back forth of 2005 (already discussed previously), the 2009 blocks are the only other ones worth mentioning:
 * 03:52, 24 September 2009 Tznkai (talk | contribs) blocked Stevertigo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy,) (there is a diff in the block log for this one, if anyone wants to view it.
 * 03:35, 7 September 2009 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) blocked Stevertigo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (persistant attacks against others, accusing them, pejoratively, of being "kids")
 * 20:26, 21 January 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Stevertigo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3rr on Jesus, prince of peace)
 * I still think a 4 month block is reasonable at this point. Is it possible to keep the block in place, and allow him to only participate in the ArbCom discussion? Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no technical way to do that, an admin would have to unblock and then put him under a topic ban for everything except the ArbCom case. The last time that happened, if I recall correctly (with Captain Occam), there was a bit of a stink about whether an admin was actually allowed to do that.  I believe it ended up with the editor totally unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who was around here when Jimbo alone reserved the power to ban or block someone, I find it quite distasteful to find this power has slipped out of responsible hands - down past elected Arbcom members - to any old user with admin status. Its kind of clear that something is wrong here. Just a few short days ago I was minding my own business editing articles like Ive been doing since 2002, and then all it takes is some adversarial opposing editor whose losing an edit dispute to complain to ANI. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, for the grand old days of the lovable benign despot! Down with mobocracy!! How dare an editor with less edits than you bring a complaint against one of the Old Hands. It's a brave new world, Stevertigo, and you had best accomodate yourself to it, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Some late-night comments. I mostly just wish Stevertigo would understand there's a problem here, and work with others to become a better editor and stop getting in disputes.  That's a much better outcome than passing a bunch of sanctions, and waiting for them to fail to get on with an indef.  That said, I think any actual sanctions should be pretty generic in order to handle issues like talk page disruption (1RR on articles doesn't really address that).  Here is a probation received by David Tombe in the Speed of Light arbitration that might be a useful template.  GWH's call for outside the box thinking is also quite apropos.  Stevertigo, are you completely unwilling to work with a mentor?  That has helped some other editors with situations having things in common with yours. Beyond my Ken and Steve Quinn and anyone else this might apply to: I wish everyone would refrain from grave dancing etc.  This is not a happy situation.  WP today compared to previous eras is better in some ways and worse in others.  Anyone who's been around WP for a long time and did things in the past that had (often unexpected) long-reaching consequences for the present, is likely to be carrying satisfactions and regrets around with them that will affect everything they do, so please accept that.  Stevertigo laments some things that were lost.  He is entitled to do that too, so bugging him about it isn't nice.  Different directions have been taken as WP has evolved, not all of them inevitable and not all of them good.  Some things definitely went the wrong way with the result that WP now sucks in ways that it shouldn't, and it will soon be sucking a lot worse in ways that most users aren't thinking about right now.  So maybe all of us will be lamenting eventually the way Stevertigo is at the moment. Stevertigo, the widening of admin authority you're complaining about happened around 2006-2007 and was unavoidable given the growth of the user population and the craziness of that era.  I'm sure you remember it.  There was no way Jimbo and Arbcom could handle everything.  That particular shift in admin functions hasn't been bad in itself, since the standards of responsibility for admins went up quite a bit and they've mostly been handling it well.  You might look at some recent RFA's if you haven't seen any in a while.  It is of course perfectly ok to believe that the growth itself wasn't a good thing and that it would have been better to stay smaller, but here we are. Steve Quinn, I don't think you should be trying to facilitate/direct discussion and be a party to the dispute at the same time.  Your ability and willingness to serve in an impromptu facilitator mode is commendable and is very welcome in other situations, but with a dispute you're involved in, it's better to leave facilitation to folks who are uninvolved and (no offense intended) who have better understanding of the big picture and more DR experience, like GWH and Courcelles, or arbcom if they still take the case.  (I hope Courcelles does not see this discussion as a race against arbcom.  We are not in conflict with them.) Stevertigo, do you talk to Jimbo very much these days, either on-wiki or off?  Maybe you and he could have a private chat, if you think it would do some good to talk to someone else who's been around through all this ferment and can give you better understanding or advice than we can supply here.  I of course have no idea what relations between you and Jimbo were ever like, or how well you knew each other or anything like that, so maybe my suggestion isn't so useful, but I thought it worth a mention. BMK - Stevertigo has edited over eight hundred articles since August 2009.  If you're seriously saying he's disrupted all of them, I'm looking forward to seeing a very long evidence presentation from you in the arb case. ;-) 67.122.209.115 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (cutting in) IP 67.122 wrote: "the widening of admin authority you're complaining about happened around 2006-2007 and was unavoidable given the growth of the user population and the craziness of that era. I'm sure you remember it. There was no way Jimbo and Arbcom could handle everything." - I and others had made the point to JW back in 2005 and for a long time he resisted the notion of letting even Arbcom deal with blocks and bans without his review. I suppose by 2007 it was a bit much even for Arbcom. But the proper solution was not to pass the heavy powers down to admins, it was to grow Arbcom. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the dark horse here is the Anonymous IP 67....... I would not have expected an anonymous IP to be such a valuable contributor. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @67.122: A nice analysis, but I think you're mistaken in some particulars. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought that all of Steveertigo's edits were disruptive, because I've never even thought such a thing, nor have I said it, or ever intimated or implied it.  What I've said from my first comment here was that I believe Sv has been caught in something of a "time warp", that Wikipedia has moved on since he first started editing here, and he has failed to keep up with it, and a block or ban was needed to jolt him into changing.  In the meantime, since I made that first remark, my interactions with him have also convinced me that what I initially read as a certain amount of cluelessness on Sv's part, is, in fact, in large part a willful disinclination to change.  In short, Sv likes to edit as if it was 2002, and is resisting, kicking and screaming, being made to recognize the changed circumstances. In short, there's no "grave dancing" here.  Not only has nothing been decided (yet), but about the only graveside activity seems to be Sv digging his hole deeper and deeper.  If I thought that Sv was hopeless, I would not have put as much energy and thought into offering him the advice that I have.  I credit him with the intelligence and ability to be a net positive to the project, as I'm sure he once was, but his latest remark, pining for the good old days when Jimbo was king, is yet another indication that he's just not hearing what's being said to him.  Simple expressions of concern for a once-productive editor are no longer adequate to provoke the necessary change here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This has veered off-topic with long unrelated rants. It appears as a minimum, a community revert restriction needs to be imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ncmvocalist that a community revert restriction needs to be imposed. Stevertigo started a series of edits on the "Truth" article at 5:16 September 29 (now 17 hours ago) . This is a consensus lede, which is also semi-protected. This would have turned into controversial editing (again) except I was able to stop the changes after five of his edits. I also had to leave a comment on his talk page, because I was having edit confilcts with him. I am unable to access the edit history so here is the section on his talk page User_talk:Stevertigo. His response was argumentative (unconstructive). . I was flustered. This response indicated to me that he has no respect for the work the editors put into the lede of this article. Before it was semi-protected there was a vandal who inserted their POV multiple times, which had to be reverted multiple times, and also screwed up the text, so that had to be restored and edited. My response was to ask him if he knew that the ANI was still open, and that he might be interested in what they were discussing . I was referring to this section here. On my talk page, his reply was that he wanted me to respond to his argumentative question. In the next sentence he says he thought the ANI was archived and closed. . His next response was to report that the ANI had been not been closed or revived, and that he had left a comment on that page (meaning here) . My interpretation is that he fell back into the familiar, heated, editing pattern. I don't know if a closed and archived ANI discussion had anything to do with it. However, it appears easy for him to fall back into this pattern at this time. Hence, a community revert restriction needs to be imposed. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed Truth other than reading its history just now, but what Steve did there doesn't seem related to the IP vandal / semiprotect issues, and he seems to have legitimately worked to improve style of the lede without changing any of the underlying informational content.
 * If we intend to topic-restrict him to just the Arbcom case, that's one thing, but the evidence here in this specific one seems weak. It seems like a good faith attempt to improve the lede, and it seems to me to have succeeded.  If you can point to specific parts of it that were negative or disruptive, please do so...  I tried to compare all the sentences and see if there was anything negative in the result, but could have missed something.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No - Steve's edit had nothing to do with the vandal, or semi protect, I was pointing out the work neccessary to create and maintain the lead.  Steve Quinn (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am really not in the mood to do the extra work to explain this more than I already have. However, I shall elaborate and explain further. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just started to respond to the edits you removed, Steve Quinn. Without reposting them...
 * If I believed Stevertigo was uniformly causing problems, without any constructive edits, I would have blocked him a long time ago with or without community support.
 * I understand your concern if he might start to engage in disruptive behavior on other articles again, but I don't think he did in this case. I can see that the situation has you stressed out, but in this particular instance I think you're overreacting.
 * We have the Arbcom case going now. That subjects everyone involved to a higher level of scrutiny for the duration.  Stevertigo doing more disruption during the case will stand out like a sore thumb if he does.  Many eyes are on the situation now.  It's being taken seriously.
 * If you're stressed out by it, take a deep breath and give it a day off. A short Wikibreak will do wonders for your calm and ability to constructively engage and help resolve this.  I think it's important for you to focus on evidence on the Arbcom case and to do so from a calm frame of mind.  That doesn't have to be rushed - take a day, a few days, whatever.  Arbcom moves slowly (weeks and weeks).  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, George. I apologize for overreacting. Apparently, I became alarmed, when he began to edit the article, and then I reacted to his comment on my talk page. Hence, it does appear that I overreacted. You are correct, and I am stepping away for one or two days My lack of experience in these matters makes things more important than they are. Also, I think Wikipedia is in safe hands, and can probably hold the fort without me ;>).  Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Karlsen's concerns

 * Consider also, Steve, that your revert undid actual work - work I put into the article (truth) to make it better. I understand that there was work put into it and that an editor who has a long history of working on that article can object to my changes. But in this environment where I alone am subject to scrutiny, is it a punishable act for me to stand up and defend my own work? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve Quinn, since you've offered no justification for the reversion of the edits apart from opposition to the editor who made them, I've restored Stevertigo's version of Truth. I sincerely hope that your other reversals of his edits can be supported by some more substantial basis than this. I also oppose any community ban/sanction imposed here, which seeks to substitute the drive-by judgements of editors reviewing the situation for a few minutes for the more deliberative process of the currently open arbitration case (to which you have yet to submit any evidence whatsoever). Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I justified my reversion in the edit history of the article. I chose not to justify it here, with all the other stuff going on. I decided to be human enough to back down. Also, saying that my revert was because I have an oppositon to the editor is very much a mischaracterization. I am not in oppositon to Stevertigo. So I don't know what that remark is based on. This is an ANI, not seperate divisions of armed camps. In addition, this same mischaracterization was repeated in the edit history of the article. Also, since there is still a consensus lede that should be taken into consideration at this time as well.
 * I figured Stevertigo would either revert my edit or simply restore his work and carry on - after I notified him of the situation on his talk page. I also noticed that I undid actual work, I thought that was implied in his talk page message. Apparently it wasn't implied so I acknowledge it now.  Also, about the mischaracterization - my advise is to slow down. Just take it as a lesson of what can happen when moving too fast, or jumping the gun.  Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary "We have a consensus lede. See talk page. It has taken some effort to keep this lede, and a team of editors." can reasonably be construed as "Don't edit the lead section: we have a team of editors who have determined the correct wording, and only they may change it." This sort of behaviour violates WP:OWN, and WP:BOLD. If you had some substantive objection to Stevertigo's edit itself, beyond a claim that since "We have a consensus lede", no other editors may fiddle with it, you presumably would have provided it in the edit summary, on the article talk page, or here, by now. While I would have preferred to discuss the issue first, since you had subsequently abandoned any attempt to justify your edit at all, there was nothing to discuss, and my reversion was the correct action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that after you posted on his talk page, "I figured Stevertigo would either revert my edit or simply restore his work and carry on." Did you really believe that any edit by Stevertigo could have been restored to that article without someone else reverting, using a similarly nebulous objection ? Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, when I saw in the edit history that Stevertigo, was "trimming the lede" I became alarmed . There were two things going through my mind. First, that content was being removed, which this group of editors fought hard to keep. A previous anonymous IP inserted POV material, multiple times, , , , , , , , , and one or other editor would have to restore the lede (supported by diffs). The anonymous IP was also instructed to go to the talk page (supported by diffs). Finally, like the musketeers, three or four of us agreed that the lede at that time was the best (backed by sources). When I saw in the lede that content was being removed, I reacted. Anybody who had wrote that in the edit summary would have produced the same reaction.


 * (The following should be backed up the ANI, see also statement below)


 * However, add to this that Stervitigo has come into an article on any random day, and boldy removed material with one of his edits. His history has shown that has not done research into these challenging topics, nor has he any inclination to do any research. His flippant removal of material, in the past, has set off protracted edit conflicts with the group of editors who have worked hard on that material. This group of editors has also done the research and supplied references. In contrast, Stevertigo had done no research, nor did he supply references to back up his material. He often came into the situation spouting ideas, or "concepts", off the top of his head, and that editors should spend endless hours discussing his "concepts". In actuallity the discussion should be about inserting material discovered and mind from reliable sources. The problem in this scenario is compounded when Stervitigo inserts unsourced material in the article, during the course of the discussion. There are other variations, but that is a brief overview.


 * After a long ANI, where I have been present throughout, I was probably at my wits end. Remember, before the ANI I had to deal with the above scenario on at least three articles (with other editors), which can turn out to be frustrating and draining. I say frustrating and draining, because a good number of other editors (and I) have tried, with seemingly many attempts, to get through to Stervitigo that he can't just put off-the-top-of-his-head ideas, views, or concepts into articles. This ANI thread, should back up what I have said so far. If it does not then let me know I will look into it with you. There is still one more thing that I reacted to.


 * There is a part of me that is concerned about Stevertigo's welfare. When I saw, what I thought was a repeat of the mistakes which brought him here, I became alarmed about that as well. A part of me wanted to stop him from adding to this dilema. I have diffs that can back up my concern for Stevertigo. See my request at the Request for an ArbCom hearing, that he use the statement, which I placed on his talk page . This statement would show the ANI participants, that he understands the problem,  and will adapt to guidelines and policies, , . See my request to uninvolved Admin George. With this request I noted that while he was trying to conduct his investigation, other people would jump in and chastise or admonish Stevertigo. I remarked that a safe enviornment for Stevertigo, would be more conducive to the investigation. Hence, I "strongly reccomended" to George, that he have discussions with Stevertigo only via email, or one on one chats. Even my suggestion on Stevertigo's talk page that he use that statement, was to present an opportunity to come out of the rain, , .  This may be apparent in that section of the talk page.


 * So, the bottom line, in this particular instance, is that I overreacted. Hence, you see my entry above to George says that I over-reacted. Hopefully this covers your concerns. Also, I hope you understand that it is difficult enough to apologize in person, one on one. Imagine how difficult it was to apologize in public view, on Stevertigo's talk page. Also, throughout all my interactions with Stevertigo, my focus has been on his deficiencies in editing according to guidelines and policies. Not on Stevertigo the person. Also, I hope you understand it was not easy to make the decision to make full disclosure regarding this situation. But, maybe the point is - here at Wikipedia - maybe we are all in this together. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * These are questions Arbcom is going to be looking into. I don't want to make Steve out to be some kind of criminal, but the effect of this ANI has been negative from my point of view, and at the core of the issue has been his insistence that he has some special kind of right to revert my edits to any article, particularly ones which he has had little personal involvement with. Regarding the truth article, in a way I think that theres is a lot in the current introduction to value, as its trying to cover a lot of ground. However I have commented on talk:Truth to address its issues. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that many of your edits improve articles, but have been incorrectly reverted because of personal animus. However, I'm not going to provide a ringing endorsement of all of your contributions: something like creates at least the appearance of original research (even if it isn't), simply because of a lack of inline citations supporting the material. Since you're editing under a spotlight, providing references for absolutely everything is essential. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are saying - youve taken an objective view, and from that view you can tell that there are corrections to go around. I've agreed to be a bit more sourceful. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Further discussion can go to the arbitration case. There is no benefit in fragmenting things, or having a discussion on this low visibility page. Jehochman Talk 23:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert restriction
Of the users who participated in this discussion, there was support for a revert restriction at the very least (some supported more than this but others opposed that).

The only users who opposed, or possibly opposed, the revert restriction altogether were:
 * 1) possibly Stevertigo (who hasn't yet formally volunteered to accept a binding revert restriction) (involved)
 * 2) Peter Karlsen (possibly involved; recent edits   in support of Stevertigo's position prior to participating here but no involvement earlier)
 * 3) Jehochman (who has persistently denied the existence of this consensus; uninvolved)

Support for the revert restriction (RR) came from:
 * 1) Steve Quinn (supported stronger sanctions, involved)
 * 2) Jimwae (supported stronger sanctions, involved)
 * 3) Modocc (supported stronger sanctions, involved)
 * 4) SlimVirgin (supported stronger sanctions, not involved in recent dispute; semi-involved over the years)
 * 5) Slrubenstein (supported stronger sanctions - note: involvement/uninvolvement?)
 * 6) Tarc (supported stronger sanctions; no present disputes, but formerly involved involved party in Obama case to which Stevertigo was an involved party in )
 * 7) Maunus (opposed stronger sanctions; no present disputes, but possibly formerly involved in dispute which was frustrating)
 * 8) Pfhorrest (opposed to stronger sanctions; possibly involved but disputes have not been significant & they seem to get along with one another   )
 * 9) Cybercobra (commented on RR, prior to participating here, single content dispute, but that was resolved)
 * 10) Count Iblis (commented on RR, uninvolved prior to participating here)
 * 11) Elen of the Roads (commented on RR, uninvolved prior to participating here)
 * 12) Beyond My Ken (supported stronger sanctions, uninvolved prior to participating here)
 * 13) JzG (Guy) (supported stronger sanctions; uninvolved prior to participating here)
 * 14) Roux (supported stronger sanctions; uninvolved prior to participating here)

In the circumstances, discussion isn't going to close until that consensus has been enacted.

The users who (I think) didn't make an actual view on Stevertigo or sanctions, but were of the view that the consensus (whatever it is) should be enacted were:
 * 1) Georgewilliamherbert (uninvolved)
 * 2) Courcelles (uninvolved)
 * 3) myself (uninvolved)

The three of us read through the discussion and what it was others said, and though we had possibly differing views on the prospect of other sanctions, all three of us came to the same conclusion about a consensus supporting a revert restriction. The split in involvement/uninvolvement seems to resemble what we would see in many other discussions of this nature where consensus is enacted. The only possible question that remains is: will Stevertigo voluntarily accept the binding revert restriction (as requested by more than one user - for example, Cybercobra), or will it need to imposed involuntarily? Ncmvocalist (talk) 1 October 2010


 * Since Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2 is open right now, any editors who believe that sanctions against Stevertigo are justified would be well advised to present evidence there and ask Arbcom to take action. If the RFAR closes with no evidence against Stevertigo at all, then the following outcomes are likely:
 * The committee will not impose a sanction
 * The committee will vacate any community sanction as unjustified based on the evidence
 * Debating a community sanction against an editor whose behaviour is presently the subject of an arbitration case is pointless, unless necessary as an emergency measure, which the proposed restriction on Stevertigo surely isn't. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence was already presented to the satisfaction of more than 14 users. That a sanction might be modified in effect at some later time is not an issue because the community isn't about red tape; when it comes to a consensus, it enacts that, and discussions tend to close without an outcome only if there is no activity or no consensus for anything. Was there a community consensus to do nothing? Was there a community consensus to ban? Or, with the exception of about three users, did every editor (who participated in that part of discussion) consent to the revert restriction for now (even as an alternative to nothing or something harsher)? If it's the latter, I don't see a reason why it should not be enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only five uninvolved editors have supported a community sanction, which is probably insufficient participation. If this discussion is going to turn into votes for restricting/banning, then the support of editors for sanctioning their opponent in content disputes has to be taken with a grain of salt. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, "sanctioning their opponent" is seems to be, quite POV. Or do you think that is an objective statement? I would like to hear your view on this matter. Also, it appears that you are attempting to reframe (and trivialize) this entire ANI as a "content dispute". Very interesting. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's quite sufficient. In a recent community decision, 3 outcomes were considered (indef block, nothing and a similar measure to this one); support by 4 uninvolved and 3 involved was enough to pass the latter (with opposition by 1 involved user). The involved also have some say because they are speaking from experience; the uninvolved are more decisive as they are look at the evidence without any history; semi-involved fit in the middle of that. In other words, if the consensus said "no action", that's what the community could have enacted, but that didn't happen here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To which community decision do you refer? Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Ncmvocalist for notifying me of this. Here are my thoughts: Firstly there have been a number of accusations thrown about, some false and some even moreso. Accepting a penalty should be based on the evidence of wrongdoing, not the opinions of editors who have a grudge or those who are just are driving by the ANI like its the AFD. Hence being limited to no reverts only serves to limit me and to put me in greater jeopardy in the event that I run into the same or similarly begrudged editors in the near future.

Arbcom, though not perfect, at least has the merit that it looks at evidence, and stays constrained to the issues, which don't have anything to do with events going back to last year, or even 2003 (courtesy Slrubenstein). If the list of editors above wasn't largely the same list of editors from past ANI's and RFAR's, there would be no issue. Striking those editors out leaves just a few, who appear to be proportionally split according to the numbers. Ncmvocalist says that it takes just a few votes to make a binding resolution, and lists a recent ANI as an example. But did that ANI involve a long-term editor? Did that involve an "indef ban" from Wikipedia as a whole? Do I use an "IP sock" (ie. edit when not logged in), no I do not. The similarities between my case and that example are nil.

Though there is a sense that accepting an 0RR settlement would be a genuine and fair outcome of this ANI, its clear that that will be abused. One of the major issues has been Steve Quinn and JimWae's practice of reverting anything I do, including edits from recent days (diff), typically offered with little explanation. These kinds of reverts by others are provocative, and this ANI has yet to show even a hint of dealing with SQ and JW's errors. Note also that while SQ and JW followed me from one article to the next - an article they had no prior experience with - this was not mentioned in the ANI. Their stalking my edit history is what began the dispute. I don't understand why a fair process like this should be lopsided in the above ways. Anyway, Arbcom has now accepted the case and they will find the proper remedies and penalties. That should be good enough. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, I understand your position and concerns, but the community has had the authority to enact sanctions for some years, and after discussion and clarification over the last six months has established discussion parameters for bans and other sanctions. This discussion was aligned with those requirements.  The community was not acting inappropriately or outside precedent, process, or procedure here.  That you dislike the community authority and process here doesn't invalidate it.
 * We have no existing rules or precedent for what happens when a community decision is at or approaching consensus and an Arbcom case is filed on the same topic(s). I argued against Arbom taking up the case prematurely in part to avoid confusing the issue (see how well that worked...).
 * Ncmvocalists' assertion that the community has the right to impose restrictions or other sanctions despite the Arbcom case has some merit. I, personally, am not going to enact such - but I don't believe that we're prohibited from doing so.  Arbcom has always established policy that they don't want admins applying interfering sanctions lightly during a case, in part to avoid preventing people from participating in their arbcom cases, in part to avoid shortcutting the Arbcom process.  But the community process was running already on this, and as Steve Quinn and Ncmvocalist have pointed out, the "consensus" here already existed some days before Arbcom took up the case.  Admins have not (yet) acted on that consensus, in part due to the complexity of your filing the Arbcom case in the middle of it.  But the consensus was and is there.
 * IMHO - It would not be unreasonable for Ncmvocalist to do what he's proposed (as I said, I won't, but not because I think it's wrong; I'm just operating under more abundance of caution). If Arbcom choses to pass a motion to override, reverse, suspend, or otherwise change that action once applied then they can do so.  If they want to assert a general universal preemption standard, beyond what they've done before, they can also do that.
 * Again; IMHO. I agree with Ncmvocalists's logic, read of the consensus, and proposal.  But I'm not going to take action.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you George. I agree with much of what you wrote. But note that the ANI was filed by Steve Quinn, based largely on his issue with me at the punishment article - an article dispute he instigated by following me via my edit history. This type of action we often call harassment. This issue of harassment had yet to be addressed here at ANI, and the fact that no one here at ANI had addressed it is telling. (Does anyone think that I'm being 'evasive' by making this basic point?)
 * I appreciate the idea that other editors can rise to any task, such as participating fairly in dispensing with sanctions and other serious penalties. But I also understand that administrators here are both aware of Arbcom's presence in this matter, and trusting in that Arbcom can deal with this and any other matter that comes to their attention. I should note to Steve and Jim that the new case is open and the Arbs are waiting for evidence from them. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As has been stated before - the issue is not simply with the issues on Truth, and has moved far beyond that.
 * You can present detailed evidence of wikistalking at the Arbcom case. What you've shown so far does not appear convincing, but that's a preliminary conclusion which I am open to having my mind changed on.  You're not being evasive making the argument; but your attempting to conceptually limit the scope to direct outcomes of that one article is invalid, and to the extent that you've used that as an excuse on and off in the wider discussions that was evasive.  Your behavior was (again) brought to ANI - a community sanctions discussion and poll ensued, on your behavior, writ large.
 * Steve Quinn's role in starting the ANI case, even if he were found to have abusively wikistalked to the point of having him blocked, would not invalidate the community discussion and consensus.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) @Stevertigo: Two quick points: bringing a beef to AN/I could well be part of a plan of harrassment, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in this case, the fact that many people came forward and agreed, to varying extents, with their complaints, is an indication that their beef was not unfounded, and therefore was not harrassment. Second, I would point out that a number of people, myself included, saw your filing of an ArbCom case as a tactical maneouvre intended to distract from, and, effectively, do an end run around, the AN/I discussion which was, as noted by Ncmvocalist above, trending against you. Even if that wasn't your purpose, it greatly complicated the situation, since the normal course of events would be for the community discussion to come to some conclusion, and for that conclusion to go to ArbCom for review afterwards. Since the ArbCom case is unlikely to go forward without evidence, and since this discussion is going forward, it would perhaps be best if you focus your attention here, rather than complaining about no one playing in the playground you yourself created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you both are saying here. But I think that its entirely wrong to dismiss or otherwise validate the practice of harassment (its uncertain if this is what you both are saying). Keep in mind that before I ever reverted a single edit at the punishment article, Jim and Steve instigated the dispute by following me there, and by asserting editorial control over an article they never before dealt with and had no actual editorial interest in. They were more interested in being adversarial toward me, and I think Arbcom will find this was improper.
 * Their lack of topical interest means that the quality of their writing suffered - they were parroting the sources rather than rewriting the article. If their argument is - as people here appear to claim - that what they were doing was transcendentally better than what I was doing, then I think Arbcom is going to find that false.
 * As far as other article disputes go, the only other places I've interacted with Jim and Steve are at time, human, and truth, articles which, after some contention, I succeeded in improving in certain essential ways. Arbcom will no doubt take these into consideration. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My two cents (and then I go home for the night) -
 * You have not (yet) convinced me that harrassment or Wikihounding describes what happened here. I am open to the potential that that's what happened.
 * Whether it was or not is irrelevant to the ANI discussion and finding regarding your larger editing patterns.
 * You can either bring the alleged harrassment or Wikihounding up on ANI (presumably, this subpage here) or in the Arbcom case, with more evidence and diffs, to make a case for sanctions if there was behavior beyond policy.
 * If there was such abuse, it will not be rewarded.
 * However, the "not rewarding" would not and cannot include making the ANI / community consensus go away. That finding is real, valid, and outside the scope of what you're suggesting about the nature of the interactions between you and those users.
 * I believe that you should untangle your efforts going forwards.
 * If you intend to argue that the ANI / community finding should not go forwards, it should be argued with different points. You are free to do so, obviously, either here and/or at the Arbcom case with a motion to preclude the community acting.
 * That should be separate from any evidence about the harrassment / Wikihounding you chose to present, at either or both venues.
 * The issues can be reviewed and addressed. Preferably in completely separate subsections.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, George. Well, obviously Arbcom is going to look at this, and the conceptualization I hope they go with is that it follow the timeline of actual events between me and Steve and Jim. The idea that this is all just about me and what I've done since 2003 is not as strong: The current issue has a limited cast of characters and has a specific starting point, and I think Arbcom likes their cases to have reasonably finite boundaries. Though the ANI far exceeded these boundaries, it would be a detriment to the legitimacy of any referendum if that referendum was both one-sided and open-ended at the same time. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo ANI: Administrator close
(original on ANI sub-page / copy to User talk:Stevertigo + log to edit restrictions page)

This has been hanging open too long. There is community consensus for - at the very least - a community edit restriction of 1RR per week per article on Stevertigo, as noted above and described by Ncmvocalist. This is the least of the restrictions which had significant community support (a 0RR restriction and a moderate length ban also had more support than oppose, but due to poll respondee selection issues and the also-active Arbcom case I am inclined not to impose those).

Pursuant to that - As an uninvolved administrator, I am closing this discussion with a community imposed 1RR/week/article edit restriction on Stevertigo, without stated end date / duration as none was mentioned in the consensus discussions (though, obviously, Steve can request reconsideration at future time(s) reasonably not less than say six months from now).

I additionally and personally would like to add a cautionary note - Steve, you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia over these many years. It is evident that large parts of the community have now lost faith in your positive contributions and lost patience dealing with you, regardless of who is "at fault" in terms of policy and process. I urge you to consider your behavior and work to mitigate that loss of patience and faith. This cannot help but end badly if you continue down the path that brought you to this time and place. Administrators and Arbcom cannot help you if you drive a wedge in between yourself and the community writ large. I have no wish to be back here in another three or six months with a larger angry community who will not be satisfied by anything short of an actual ban. Even if others' behavior is entangled in the current dispute, Steve, you have to admit you've made a lot of enemies. Consider reaching out and trying to make them friends again.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Formal wording of the restriction as recorded is:
 * Stevertigo is subject to a community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week, with indefinite duration.
 * (the verbosity above was ...imprecise... for the edit restrictions log, for which I apologize...).
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)