Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Tundrabuggy

User:Tundrabuggy
Following on from above, I am also concerned about the behaviour of. I clashed with this editor earlier this year over his promotion of conspiracy theories on Muhammad al-Durrah. Since then I've disengaged from anything to do with him. Unfortunately he has chosen to do the opposite. He now appears to be wikistalking me from article to article, opposing whatever I support, supporting whatever I oppose, allying with and aiding editors with whom I have an editorial dispute. He has now done this on with least five articles relating to ancient history that he's never edited before I edited them - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and now Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris. He appears to be systematically watching my edits and involving himself in any dispute in which I'm involved. He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" and of being part of a "campaign"  to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history. (I've never heard of such a perspective and have no idea what it would look like). Other editors have expressed concern and disagreement with his tactics and comments, ,. Instead of responding to these concerns, he blew them off. He has now turned up on the AfD mentioned above (which I didn't start), where he was specifically canvassed by Ariobarza, the editor who created the article in question. Ariobarza has presented a very hostile view of my involvement to encourage Tundrabuggy to get involved. Tundrabuggy duly turned up to support Ariobarza in the AfD, in which I had !voted to delete the article. This is looking like a systematic feud on Tundrabuggy's part, and it needs to stop or be stopped. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Particularly since Tundrabuggy has contributed nothing useful or indeed informed. From my experience of Battle of Opis he is acting purely to harass ChrisO. It's not acceptable. Ariobarza etc at least have a genuine interest in the subject: I do not think this is the case with Tundrabuggy. Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your perspective Moreschi. I don't remember seeing you at the Battle of Opis lately.  Were you one of the canvassed ones? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(to ChrisO) This is an unfounded accusation against an opposing editor, with whom you're involved in an ongoing dispute. As Tundrabuggy pointed out, "all the articles above are intimately related to each other, and thus to be involved in one is to be involved in them all." Khoikhoi 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ariobarza ... if you want to strike your comments on this page, then I recommend using rather than deleting them like you did to these Noticed they were re-added a few edits later  -t  BMW  c-  00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hardly unfounded. I quoted what Tundrabuggy himself has said: he has already made it clear that he's following me around because he believes I'm pursuing some sort of political agenda and he's seeking to oppose that. That's a nonsensical line to take. It's also a completely inappropriate reason to pursue an editor. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For clarity, Khoikhoi, are you an uninvolved or involved party? Jehochman Talk 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly involved, since he has been actively supporting one side - Tundrabuggy's, essentially - in four of the five pages I listed above. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your comment proves my point that these pages are all part of the same dispute, and I have been involved in these pages for the same reason. Tundrabuggy has not done anything out of the ordinary here. This is the same dispute which has spanned across several pages. Khoikhoi 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A few notes:
 * I'm trying to avoid ANI's but was asked to review/participate on this post.
 * Just about everyone who commented thus far, myself included, are somehow involved. It's a bit of a shame to see the same "old faces".
 * Speaking as a person who knows what it's like to be followed and harassed by fellow Wikipedians, I'd like to try and keep things in proper perspective. i.e. I'm not sure I see much more than a somewhat 'new to wiki-policy' editor responding to a canvassing note. Has there been anything new other than the AfD within the past 10-14 days? Tundrabuggy has been active on several articles which were not mentioned, and to be frank, I considered his contribution to the Battle of Jenin talk page a bit of a relief considering some of the highly provocative statements made by fellow editors.
 * Considering my (mostly ignored) proposition to both Tundra and Chris to break off from active disputes was made a bit under a month ago and that there doesn't seem to be anything new, I would personally recommend a canvass related warning to relevant editors.
 * My apologies to everyone involved for meddling in.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I have not read the "Ariobarza" section above this subsection.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to emphasize that KhoiKhoi is absolutely right, that all of these articles are (intimately) related to each other and have spidered to one another through the talk pages. As one of ChrisO's diffs pointed out, all are related by virtue of time-period -circa 450 BCE- subject and place.  The seemingly obscure article, Kaveh Farrokh, is related as an historian.  The idea that ChrisO is being wiki-stalked is out in left field, frankly.  As for Ariobarza, I thought (s)he had tried consciensiously to make her points on the talk page before making small edits in the article.  Then when she tried to write an article herself, before it is even finished, ChrisO and friends vote to speedily delete it.  A sympathetic admin might have steered her into writing on her own name-space and helped her in making a better article. What is gained by doing a speedy delete?  Nothing except [more] bad feelings are generated.  That is why I voted against deletion.  At least give someone a chance.  I didn't vote the way I did to vote against ChrisO (as part of some [imagined] "systematic feud") but to vote for Ariobarza. I hope the distinction is clear. And @ Jaakabou -- I do appreciate your input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the heightened sensitivity between you and ChrisO, I would suggest that you try and avoid even the impression of following him to future articles - there's plenty of articles out here. Also note that responding to WP:CANVASS notes is frowned upon.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy, I've already pointed out on the articles for deletion page that this is an ordinary Articles for Deletion process, not a WP:speedy delete. And I've been telling Ariobarza since June that he needs to stop adding original research to articles and to stop creating articles with no references.  He's had far more chances than most editors get.  And when you take part in an articles for deletion policy, you shouldn't be 'voting' for or against an editor but stating your views based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Doug Weller (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course Tundrabuggy, you have followed Chris0 around. It stands out like dog's balls. Anyone with commonsense and good faith would raise an eyebrow to see how you followed Chris0 to the five articles after the dispute with him over the MDurrah article. The latter is an I/P article. The Cyrus articles have nothing to do with politics (though you edit there as though Chris0's putative POV on I/P issues influences his judgement on Persian battles). He has a professional background in ancient history, you apparently don't. What are the odds (wiki brims with mathematicians) that it is a mere coincidence that, after two editors had a conflict over a contemporary I/P article, on an obscure incident, the one worsted by technicalities that favour form over substance, moves on to work over several articles on Persian history that require a rather involved understanding of assessing abstruse sources, requirements he was trained in academically under a major authority in ancient history, only to find that, by pure chance, his whilom adversary shows up to edit against him over exactly the same range of articles? Almost zero. It has nothing to do with chance. To ask people seriously to believe that this is mere coincidence is a charming piece of chutzpah, nothing more. From an outside perspective, it looks as though your 'victory' in one article ran to your head, and you thought it worthwhile seeing if you could follow it up against the same antagonist. This is harassment.


 * You show, unlike Chris0, no technical understanding of, or informed knowledge about the historical evidence, evince no record (I stand corrected if wrong)of a long-standing intrinsic passion for the subject, but you are very strong in making 'political' assessments of the former editor's ostensible POV. That is wikistalking, and you do it by siding with, or defending, editors of little experience, nationalistic in approach, with whom Chris0 clashes on quite straightforward questions of RS. You appear in many edits, to me at least, to be a POV-headhunter, unaware of your own. That is your right. Nothing of course will be done about this, since wikistalking is quite commonplace. People enjoy niggling at others, especially when they've won one suit. Far too many editors don't contribute substantively to articles, but hang round to monitor POVs. You, at least here, are doing precisely that.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Finally some commentary with brains! Nishidani has it in one. Now could someone please do something about this? Moreschi (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objections to topic bans on disruptive editors from articles; clarification: I'm not sure if this is the current state on the articles ChrisO and Tundrabuggy are comunicating on since last I looked was almost a month ago.
 * AS AN OFFTOPIC, I'd use this forum to note that I got a bit of a DE issue (myself) on with 2 editiors strongly promoting a personal misunderstanding of the Likud charter as a must be listed in the lead. Or as one of them put it in his revert edit: "It is important for article NPOV". Could someone please do something about this?
 * p.s. Tundra, Doug Weller is correct that !voting is not made on personal perspective but should be based on (preferrably also linked to) existing policy.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC) wikilink 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, would you voluntarily stop following Chris O, or would you like an admin (!me) to make a ruling? Jehochman Talk 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: the AfD vote, I thought the article had some merit and that it should be allowed to take shape. It was not part of any "feud" other than that that ChrisO would like to make it.   Re what is called "canvassing," it appears that that complaint is only going to apply to me, and not ChrisO who has canvassed most of the contributers on this page.  I have canvassed exactly zero.  I am the 4th contributer to these articles (the Cyrus-related ones) that ChrisO has tried to take some kind of wiki-lawyering action against.  The others have apparently been intimidated sufficiently to no longer contribute to these articles at all. I did approve of the effort to have a content issue resolved with mediation, though it is not clear where that went.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a "no". Tan   &#124;   39  15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No this simply doesn't the mustard as a serious reply, Tundrabuggy. (a) Specialist qualifications are not required in Wiki for contributing to articles. At the same time, the encyclopedia is particularly happy if it can enjoy expertise, esp. in difficult fields. ChrisO has been professionally trained as an historian, in the area of antiquity. We don't know your background, but from following the edits, it does not appear that you have a formal grounding in the field of the history of antiquity. (To the contrary (need proof?), your remarks elsewhere strongly suggest you lack even an elementary understanding of historical method). That said, the rules are that you are equally entitled to edit there and anywhere else but (b) you both had a conflict of some considerable intensity over MDurrah. Chris0 left that, and, if I recall, on request, went to the Cyrus Cylinder and associated articles, as a duck returns to water, to his 'proper element'. Soon after, you turned up, and sided with editors who disagreed with him. We are not asked to assess, as you intimate, the merits of that conflict. We have been asked whether, in turning up, after your MD 'victory', to an area where he has expertise and you do not, you came there by pure coincidence, or by design?  Indeed, you have, in your reply, as elsewhere, earlier, snubbed requests to clarify what appears to be a patent example of  adversarial stalking. The gravaman of the charge is you have stalked ChrisO, on his natural terrain, in an area you show no particular knowledge of, immediately after the MDurrah conflict with him. He left, perhaps, to adapt an idiom from Sophocles, to browse in solitude his thoughts on quieter pastures, and finds you moseying up again to ride shotgun, herding his ideas, barely after the bulldust from your shootout with him at the OK corral had settled. So explain what you're doing there, and why your reappearance on five consecutive pages he was editing  is merely random, against all mathematical odds. Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nishidani, we know nothing about ChrisO's qualifications, since "ChrisO" is an anonymous username. If ChrisO decides he wants to publicly identify himself, then we'll be able to ascertain his expertise. Lacking that, it is inappropriate to speculate about these matters, or to claim that he has an expertise that other anonymous userids lack. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose 'we' will now have to open up a section, 'Who can prove Nishidani is not a liar', while studiously ignoring the point, documented in the diffs, that Tundrabuggy subscribes to what can only be called a fringe theory redolent of the hermeneutics of paranoid suspicion. He has intimated that all editing on the Middle East, from articles about Sumer to Sozomenos, is subject to suspicions of partisanship that reflect on the contemporary Israeli-Palestine conflict. It is this absolutely bizarre statement that set the bells ringing for me. Anyone who subscribes to this lunatic theory should not be editing articles on ancient near Eastern history, apart from considerations of incompetence. Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nishidani, we know nothing about ChrisO's qualifications, since "ChrisO" is an anonymous username. If ChrisO decides he wants to publicly identify himself, then we'll be able to ascertain his expertise. Lacking that, it is inappropriate to speculate about these matters, or to claim that he has an expertise that other anonymous userids lack. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called Wiederholungszwang in the technical literature.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Nishidani, I urge you to read my earlier responses as these are not "merely random" pages but all very clearly and obviously related, and it shouldn't take a formal grounding in history to realise this. It seems to me that had you been following this "dispute" closely, you would have been able to see this as well, unless of course you are one who has been recruited as support for ChrisO, in which case in a cursory look you might have missed it. Nor, as you have noted, are such formal qualifications required to contribute, to read or be able to understand the source material referenced, much of which is available either on Amazon or on Google books.  Now to the point that my editing of these related pages is somehow related to my "victory" as you call it, regarding the MD conflict, I would simply say that I cannot even imagine how you would consider a victory an event that dragged my wiki reputation and others' through endless wiki accusations, taking I don't know how many hours of life to defend against, even to the point of one water-carrier trying to get another uninvolved administrator recalled... it was endless.  No user would want a repeat of that kind of "victory". Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * clarification. I did not say the pages were random. I said you turning up, straight after the MaD incident, on five interconnected pages your erstwhile adversary was editing on obscure episodes in Persian history, cannot be coincidental, or random. I find misconstrual of the obvious offensive, Tundrabuggy: it is called wikilawyering.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer the question. You now have several people, not nobodies like myself, but administrators, asking you: 'why, immediately after the Mohammad al-Durrah dispute, where Chris0 was sanctioned to your editorial advantage, did you turn up on five pages where Chris0 had begun to edit, dealing with obscure events in Persian history?' Everything else is waffle. Either this is a one-off cosmic freak occurrence, warranting investigation by Pascalian mathematicians and a wiki page itself for the advent of miracles in probability theory, or you were and are wikistalking. I've asked you to explain this bizarre coincidence three times. Three times you have rambled on about other things. Not to answer it is, in my book, a tacit admission that your appearance there comes from trailing him, to a purpose. Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy has already made it clear that he sees this as an ideological conflict. Note his comments that he thinks I'm pushing a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Persian history . He seems to have no interest in ancient history as such - he's not contributed anything to the articles other than sniping at my edits - but he seems to think he has to act as some sort of "watchdog" to push back against my edits where they conflict with his ideological views. This is, of course, completely inappropriate behaviour. I'm not pursuing any kind of ideological agenda, though he seems to view everything through the prism of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a very unhealthy approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tundrabuggy doesn't seem to be addressing the central concern raised in this section, which is: did Tundrabuggy start contributing to articles on ancient Persian history because he was continuing a preexisting conflict with ChrisO? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Furthermore, the allegation that there's such a thing as a pro-Palestian perspective on ancient Persian history is bizarre. This kind of ideological perspective is bad enough on I/P articles, it doesn't need to be imported into ancient history articles. I think Tundrabuggy ought to just step away from this topic area. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've suggested before that we need to crack down on this sort of politicisation of ancient history. Modern Greek/Macedonian nationalist feuding being projected into the distant past in our articles is bad enough, but this is ridiculous. It's a clear violation of WP:BATTLEFIELD. --Folantin (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can at least understand modern Greek/Macedonian feuding over ancient history, since it's a fundamental issue of national identity for them, but as you say, it's just bizarre to project the I/P conflict onto ancient Persia and Babylonia. I have no idea what a "pro-Palestinian nationalist" POV of that period would even look like. Some of Tundrabuggy's comments on Talk:Battle of Opis (see ) suggest that he is being influenced by a literalist reading of the Bible/Torah, which portrays Cyrus in complimentary terms as the liberator of the Jews. He appears to believe that I'm trying to "undermine" Cyrus. Khoikhoi appears to believe the same (and perhaps for the same reasons) - see Talk:Cyrus cylinder. There may be some sort of Jewish fundamentalist undercurrent here as well. They are both currently tag-teaming to remove sourced info that apparently conflicts with their POV, . Not helpful behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) "it's just bizarre to project the I/P conflict onto ancient Persia and Babylonia". It's ludicrous, especially since an equally valid (i.e. irrelevant) accusation of being "anti-Israeli" could be made against those promoting the opposite view. Given the current tensions between modern Israel and Iran, "pro-Persian" could be interpreted as "anti-Zionist". --Folantin (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules on wikistalking, to my brief knowledge, are hardly ever the object of administrative action, since it is intrinsically hard to prove. It is also true that far too much niggling for technical advantage is one unfortunate consequence of the rule book's articles. All editors with minimal experience will have abundant anecdotal evidence of odd coincidences on pages they edit, of people wandering in to edit, not the article, but, apparently, to resume a conflict begun on some other, often unconnected page. In my own interactions with Tundrabuggy, I have nothing to complain about. He readily accepted a correction of a confused remark he made about the circumstances of Mussolini's death. Sign of a responsive editor. We exchanged views on the Nahum Goldmann page. But I'm afraid this particular matter is serious. It may be inexperience, it may be overconfidence, it may be an inner conviction that, in the I/P area, Chris0 is biased, and therefore must be watched. But I doubt whether he will ever convince anyone that it was pure happenchance that he turned up on the 5 Persian pages Chris0 was editing, after the Mohammad al-Durrah episode, simply because he too happens to have an abiding interest in Cyrus. Jehochman made a decent suggestion, and I think Tundrabuggy should take it to heart. Admit this has, at the least, the strong appearance of an impropriety, and refrain from editing historical articles on the ancient Near Eastern history for a while. That restores the conditions for renewing a bona fides that is now under a shadow. No administrative action need be made, if a simple unilateral gesture to reassure those who are troubled by this incident is taken. There is a certain honour in admitting an error. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's an editor who edits only for the purpose of following me around, insulting me, and reverting me. I'll tell you what, if that other editor is blocked, then I'll take the suggestion of blocking Tundrabuggy more seriously. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Name him, provide the diffs, and if the evidence is strong, I would add my name to blocking him, whoever he is. I'm not calling, by the way, for Tundrabuggy to be blocked. I am asking that he stop dragging fantasies of a contemporary I/P agenda into articles on antiquity that have no bearing on Israel, and to lay off being a proxy in a some administrator's attempt to game the system, by tracking Chris0.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For those who are asking how I happened to get involved in the Cyrus Cylinder article, it is really quite simple. There was a discussion on Elonka's talk page sometime around Sept 8th  on this issue and I commented on it   and . I was actually motivated by the response of another univolved user Arcayne who made a contribution here  and whose point I agreed with.   An administrator, (not Elonka) recognizing my interest in Jewish history,  wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the page and its Talk page, and asking if I had any associated references.  After careful reading of the article and talk page, {see: }  I saw what I considered WP:UNDUE and I contributed my first post on the TALK 13th Sept  to that effect.  I did my first edits on the article on some 10 days later., adding a reference , and generally tried to make the article better. As I have explained earlier, this subject has tentacles that stretch through numerous other articles (Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Nabonidus etc) dealing with the same/similar subject matter, some of which I have edited and ChrisO has not -- ie the Nabonidus article.  This really has nothing to do with any feuds with ChrisO.  It is merely an area in which I have an interest.  Other of the articles I work on have nothing whatever to do with him, as I am sure there are other places ChrisO edits where I do not.  It is not accurate to say that I "followed" ChrisO anywhere.  I know my own motives, and they are targeted to the benefit of Wikipedia, not toward antagonizing any particular editor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is called shooting oneself in the foot, or, though this is not a court of law, 'turning state's evidence'. You contradict yourself, and your explanation only underlines the point Chris0 and others raise.


 * You say (a) you have an 'interest in Jewish history' and then that (b)the five articles Chris was editing cover 'an area in which (you) have an interest'. The five articles deal only very marginally with Jewish history, if at all (the Battle of Opis? I've never read a mention of it in several volumes on the History of the Jews I have in my library). You then admit that your interest in this area arose from (c) Arcayne's note to Elonka, which was silly in its wildly semi-paranoid assertion that


 * "'Some of these articles - esp. the Cyrus Cylinder article weigh heavily upon the questions of Israeli-Palestinian discussions (notably, the repatriation of the Jews to their homeland, used by some as proof of Jewish rights to populate the area).'"


 * I.e. Arcayne made an absurd suggestion that Chris's editing on ancient Persian history was motivated by some political bias against Israel. The 'reductio ad absurdum' is obvious. If after moving on from the I/P area, I were to edit Chinese history (given my qualifications as an Orientalist), someone who tracks me on I/P articles might start reverting or controverting me on the Han historian Sima Qian because Jews are thought to have begun settlement in China in that dynastic period.


 * To your credit, while Arcayne's arcane suspicion gave you the 'motivation', you didn't act on it.


 * You then say some anonymous administrator tipped you off some days later (because you weren't sufficiently motivated?) to look at the Cyrus Cylinder article.


 * "'An administrator, (not Elonka) recognizing my interest in Jewish history, wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the page and its Talk page, and asking if I had any associated references.'"


 * Here lies a great impropriety, not ‘’directly’’ ascribable to yourself. You have unwittingly fingered an administrator for the irresponsibility at work here. The reasons are straightforward ones.


 * Whoever the administrator was (I don't think anyone cares), the suggestion (s)he made was improper, (a) given the well-known conflictual relationship between you and Chris0, to prod you to go to articles he was editing, in his natural area of interest and qualification, was an clear invitation to open those articles up to personal enmities or antagonism. (b) Of the hundreds if not thousands of Jewish editors around who have a natural interest in the history of their people (and it is the most natural thing in the world to be interested in own's own ethnic history), why should that administrator think that you of all people have a particular competence in ancient Persian history? There are numerous editors in here with magnificent linguistic talents, who read Hebrew and Aramaic, who are deeply familiar with the intricacies of Jewish literature, and who are engaged in writing pages on Jewish antiquities. To my knowledge, you do not have these gifts (correct me if I am mistaken). Therefore the administrator was not suggesting you go there because of some recognized expertise in ancient history, Biblical studies, and the recondite intricacies of Persian history. He or she made that private suggestion improperly, to not write 'maliciously'.  There is nothing in your wiki record, and in your edits to those pages after you joined Chris0, that indicates your informed suitability to edit articles on ancient Persian history. If one looks at Arcayne's comments, and your follow-up, where you both suggest there is some obscure link of a POV kind between I/P articles and Persian history in 539BC, one twigs to the game, and it is a dangerous one. I.e., that you were emailed because of your 'expertise' in confronting pro-Palestinian POVs, which were manically suspected of polluting wiki articles on ancient history not bearing to any notable degree on Jewish history. Once there you assumed an oppositional role. This is not to say you should agree with Chris0's edits, which are challengeable, as are everybody's. It is to state the obvious. That you transferred the adversarial relationship you had over an I/P article to an article on Ancient History, independently of the merits of Chris0's many contributions to those 5 articles. That cannot be coincidental either.


 * So while your reply gets you slightly off the hook (you were emailed by an admin suggesting you might look at those articles), you and the administrator reattach yourselves to it. You may not, under this reconstruction you make, have followed Chris0: you followed an anonymous administrator's suggestion to follow him,(an exquisite prevarication) to go an edit pages where he certainly does have the kind of competence wiki ideals asks for (ancient history, classical languages), a competence you lack.


 * You did so fully aware, as also the administrator must have been, of the inherent confrontational possibilities your presence there risked creating. The administrator could not have been unaware of your conflict with Chris0, nor your expressed sympathy with the view (Arcayne's) that all wiki articles on Middle and Near Eastern history can be construed as reflecting heavily on I/P pages, and thus under suspicion for subtle POV stacking. It is, by your own implicit admission, wikistalking, though by proxy. But you went there wittingly, as though under a semi-official authorization from administration.


 * I/P articles are notoriously idiotic areas where only masochists or POV warriors thrive. A pity, but the nationalist obsessions are too strong to bring these pages to a mere semblance of NPOV. But that now the infection of tactical biasing seen there is to be extended to, potentially, all articles dealing with the Ancient Near East, one cannot but feel disenchanted.


 * I have seen in the past two days several lamentable cases of extremely poor POV editing by people who know nothing of the subjects. I have mostly not intervened, precisely because to do so might have the odour of counter-stalking an I/P editor who gives a strong appearance of stalking me. (Jewish terrorism, for example (See Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists). No mention of the Irgun there, because the article defines Jewish terrorism as 'religious', ergo, the many books that cite the Irgun as a Jewish terrorist organization cannot be used, because the major groups were secularists. Clever gaming of the article by that strategic use in the lead definition of the qualifying adjective 'religious', but completely unencyclopedic, and wholly partisan. People who do not correct errors, but only hang round to defend a POV or prosecute what they consider someone else's should not edit encyclopedias). Attempts by other parties to make the article to wiki standards fail by immediate reversion. One watches, as so often, in silence and leaves the mess, to avoid possible charges of wikistalking. All of us must have many such experiences. One should preferably step into neglected pages to avoid this suspicion, unless invited as someone with specific, recognized ability for area knowledgeability and competence. When the bait was hung before you, you failed to avoid the obvious implication of conflict of interest with the encyclopedia’s aims, i.e. writing to the article, not writing against a known adversary who is recognized for his competence in that area (many of the primary sources on Persian history are in classical Greek, and Chris0 is a classicist). You didn't hold back, but accepted the challenge, having declared your belief that anti-Israel-POV gaming is part of all ancient history articles where a Jewish connection might be present. Blame the admin concerned, but not to recognize the risk was a failure of judgement on your part and tantamount to wikistalking.  Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction here. The Battle of Opis was one of the connections from the original article the Cyrus Cylinder.  That finally went under content-dispute resolution, though it is not clear how that has been resolved as yet.   Regarding Arcayne's comment, it simply motivated me to comment, as I did, including finding a source to support it. It is not necessarily the case that administrator was aware of the earlier (editing) conflict between ChrisO and myself, since (s)he (I am not sure myself) was not involved in it in any way. I am not sure it was all that well-known throughout Wiki.  I did not edit for some time for the very reasons that you have brought up, simply read and watched, and perhaps I should not have edited since ChrisO was involved there, but I did so for honorable reasons; these were the reasons supported by others on the TALK pages  (though obviously not all) and there was nothing inherently wrong with having done so.  It is better for the encyclopedia that articles read in a balanced and neutral way.  That was (and continues to be) my only purpose. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I hate to press this, and I will admit my bias. I don't edit articles I haven't read up on and (2) I have a degree in classical Greek, and can see where much of Chris0's edits are coming from, since they reflect the same training I had. I think having people with this background working on articles dealing with classical antiquity a huge boon to the project, and I dislike seeing the equanimity of a scholar troubled by piddling charges of bias, when he is on his own terrain, and the critic is a raw outsider with some generic curiosity. We are all biased. Only some are trained to be aware of it, while most are used to seeing it in other people.


 * You haven't shown the slightest familiarity with the historiography of antiquity, have no qualifications in the area, are taken by a risible Montypythonesque fringe theory about I/P implications in the battle of Opis, and followed Chris0 there under advice from an anonymous admin. To say now that the admin may not be aware of the earlier conflict is disingenuous. For there is absolutely not a skerrick of evidence in your editing record to suggest to any admin that you in particular would have useful indeed distinctive (compared to any of a few dozen Jewish editors here) abilities to review the complex historical evidence on the Cyrus articles. The only imaginable motivation for such administrative advice is that of gaming the system on Cyrus articles, and building numbers to engage in POV wars, where they are least appropriate. The editor who contacted you, by your own admission, must have known two things. Chris was editing Cyrus articles, (since the admin who drew your attention to them must have been following the edits there) and your record, since he hardly picked your name out of a hat. There is absolutely no trace in your prior record that you would be qualified to assess and contribute to Cyrus articles. There is an abundant amount of evidence in your immediate prior record that you had a substantial conflict with Chris0 on Mohammad al-Durrah. The conclusion is obvious, or otherwise some very weird people, with phenomenally quixotic mental associations that privilege the aleatory over rational connections, have been elected to administrative functions.


 * You made a naive remark on the Bible as an historical source, implying that it has a myth component and an historical component. Strip away the former, and you are left with the latter. This was a respectable view sometime from the late 1830s onwards for a good part of the 19th century. No historian of contemporary repute would say that, without very attentive qualification.  For myth itself is an index of an historical mentalité, is itself subject to the stresses of historical change, while what 'historical' facts we might have are not 'objective' but traces in earlier documents, with their POVs, that have to be deconstructed hermeneutically in order to (a) ascertain the mind and cultural set of the author(s) and (b)deduce how this cast of perspective influenced their representations of events we can only know by inference from the texts (a vicious circle), or by cross-reference to independent archeological evidence of a corroborative character. Classicists are trained in these subtleties of reading, and, with regard for example, to the 'propaganda' quarrel, all ancient historians, biblical or classical, are propagandists for a particular world-view, political perspective, cultural outlook, ethnic interest, class bias, etc. etc. That is why, ideally, unless one is well-trained in how to sieve through the labyrinthine intricacies of source evaluation, generic amateurish participation carries risks. It is hard enough for scholars to sort this out, without someone with a vague interest in 'things Jewish' to rush at a series of articles and challenge systematically someone who, at least, is trained to evaluate this kind of complexity in the evidence. I've nothing personally against you. I think your behaviour in this stresses an editor who has gifts you lack. They are relatively few and far between, people who combine advanced linguistic and historical training, and Wiki needs every last one of them. POV sleuths are tuppence a dozen, and generally (not referring to yourself but the problem in I/P articles) fit David McLellan's description of an ideologist, someone who can see everybody's ideology but his own.  Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called logorrhea in the technical literature. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It warms my heart you've finally learnt to spell the word.Nishidani (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's unpack this a bit. I got involved in this series of articles following a general request for input from Dbachmann here. From Dbachmann's comments, I was expecting some backlash from Iranian nationalists who idolise Cyrus the Great. I was not expecting a Jewish nationalist/fundamentalist backlash, though of course I knew about Cyrus's reputed liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. In editing these articles, I've done nothing more than reflecting faithfully and accurately what mainstream historians say.

Tundrabuggy has acknowledged being canvassed by an unnamed administrator. I have a pretty good idea who this was and I know for a fact that the same person has canvassed other editors, who he thought would be on his side, to support him - some of those canvassed haven't been very happy about it. Tundrabuggy has never previously shown any interest in ancient Persian history. On the other hand, as his contributions show, he has been highly active on articles of interest to Israeli politics. In fact, he joined Wikipedia as a single purpose account to push a conspiracy theorist POV on Muhammad al-Durrah immediately after a French court judgment relating to that case. That's how I first came into contact/conflict with him. To be fair, he has widened his editing interests since then.

It's obvious that Tundrabuggy was canvassed off-wiki to intervene in the ancient Persian articles not because of any experience or expertise that he has in this field - he has none - but because the canvassing administrator saw him as an ideological ally. This was quite clearly an act of stealth canvassing and votestacking, both forms of disruptive and inappropriate canvassing. It's very disappointing that an administrator should be behaving this way. Unfortunately some people seem to think that having a sysop bit exempts them from the normal rules of conduct. I hope the person responsible (yes, I know who you are) takes the hint and starts behaving like a responsible admin. As for Tundrabuggy - you've been exploited by your recruiter. In future, I suggest that you avoid playing into other people's hands like that; please don't let them take advantage of you. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple at this point. The evidence he was canvassed by an administrator to follow Chris0 to those articles is admitted. Tundrabuggy should simply withdraw from editing that kind of article where Chris0 has an academic interest as a classicist. For I/P articles, he should be free to roam at will. This should be a matter of gentlemanly withdrawal on his part from that area, since on his own evidence, he went there under an administrative indication, and not spontaneously, which mitigates the infraction, which remains one of wikistalking, and is proven verbis suis.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not recruited to perpetuate a feud with ChrisO nor for known expertise in the area, but for much the same reason that Chris was originally solicited, ie for his particular pov, as he pointed out in his link above at the FTN: . There had edit-warring going on at the web page due to the perceived lack of balance. It was hoped that I had the knowledge and information to back up my comments at Elonka's web page and thus help make the article more neutral. I have not touted any particular expertise here at wiki because as Jayjg pointed out earlier, being anonymous users, none of our "credentials" are verifiable. Thus it is necessary for people to actually look at my edits to see if there is merit in them.


 * The block being considered below seems to me to be an extension of the one attempted on three other users here all lumped together as "Iranian nationalists," as my editing has been tagged by ChrisO as having a "Jewish fundamentalist undercurrent."  While I have come to appreciate the difficulties with User:Ariobarza, I don't believe that the wholesale blocking and banning of those opposed to one's POV is a productive method of problem solving.


 * It would have been far better, as I had been considering in recent days, to develop an RfC on the issue to determine if a particular POV was actually getting undue weight rather than this strategy to block users that espouse one side or another in a dispute. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody "solicited" me. User:Dbachmann posted a general request for input on the FTN, to which I responded, because it's within my area of academic expertise. I responded by greatly expanding the Cyrus cylinder article with numerous reliable academic sources. You were specifically approached by two editors who thought your POV would be helpful to their side of disputes. You responded by following me to a range of articles, making absurd claims about "pushing pro-Palestinian nationalist POV" and reflexively opposing my edits.


 * This certainly isn't the first time I've had to take action about editing problems on these articles, but unfortunately that's because there has been a repeated problem with disruptive editors. and  repeatedly wiped out a sourced article for POV reasons and replaced it with an incoherent unsourced stub.  engaged in constant disruptive original research and egregious incivility.  is doing much the same thing, but more politely. So is, though he barely seems able to write in English. You've tried to import the dispute we had over Israeli-Palestinian issues into an unrelated area. That isn't a POV issue; it's simple bad editing and bad behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)