Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of Opis

Battle of Opis (Users: Ariobarza, CreazySuit and Larno Man; Admins Kafziel and Khoikhoi )

I spotted an RFC filed against three parties. RFC's aren't for multiple parties, so I don't think that really works, and I suspect somebody will delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man. However, there is evidence that suggests disruptive editing. I am hopeful we can resolve this matter here and now, rather than going to Arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ snipped copy-paste replication of entire page]

It should be noted that this is not the first time user:Jehochman has come in to carry the ball for user:ChrisO, who wrote the original RfC. When a previous RfC by ChrisO failed, it was Jehochman who decided to take the same issues and attempt an administrator recall instead. I have been reading the "evidence" and links and it seems to me that virtually all of the good faith effort to reach consensus actually came from the side under attack in this RfC. The fingers should be pointing in the other direction. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is evidence of wrongdoing by "the other side", please post diffs. That is why we are here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such evidence, of course. This is a straightforward case of editors, principally CreazySuit, disregarding NPOV and OR to promote a personal point of view. DougWeller, dab and I have tried repeatedly to explain to CreazySuit and the other two what WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V require; unfortunately they've chosen to ignore the three of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is useful to just copy-paste the entire page here. But I agree that the RFC is likely a waste of effort, and that since these users are clearly unamenable to feedback or criticism, they will need to be given the warn-block treatment now. If we can get a few good admins to track this issue, there won't need to be an arbitration case. If this turns into another show of admins obstructing other admins, to the arbcom this will go. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOPS! The RfC just got deleted. Could you possibly dig up the section of my post that you removed and restore at least the diffs and evidence so that people have something to look at? Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily undeleted the RfC so that I can recover the diffs myself (and you can have a look at it in the meantime). I'll copy the principal diffs with explanations here (in a new section below this one) before re-deleting the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a content dispute to me. I would think an article RfC or some form of mediation would help. I cannot see how WP:AN/I can help here. We are not solving content disputes on this page Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CreazySuit's restoration of Tundrabuggy's comment here (which was, as I understood it, a comment on the RfC and the RfC has been removed from here) just adds fuel to the fire and hardly shows GF. It isn't helpful. If he or Tundrabuggy want to raise their own RfCs, let them do it. Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that one of the main contentions is the citing of an article written by someone else, which article content in-turn cites references, and being used as a Wikipedia:CITE#Convenience_links here for our article. Perhaps if editors would take the time to find verifiable sources other than a convenience link, and use them as a basis for inclusion of material, part of the dispute may be alleviated. However, caution should be used to not violate copyright that may exist for the convenience article by solely citing it's references. This is just a suggestion and may or may not have been thought of before the escalation of the dispute currently taking place on our article.--«JavierMC»|Talk 07:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more about some editors saying that the newest translation must be the only correct one because it's the newest, it's by the teacher of the 'wrong' one, etc, linguistics is a science (although as one academic in the field tells me it can only be decided by the historians as there is more than one way to translate the contentious words) and others (including me, I confess) saying that as editors we have no business deciding which is correct. And, it appears, a belief that peer review (although the issue involves a brief note that wasn't peer reviewed) means something is 'right'. Doug Weller (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Th diffs are not what they appear to be in this case, this is a complicated content dispute involving a translation that has been academically challenged by the most recent academic research in the field. Another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) who is familiar with the details of this dispute, has commented on this issue in details here. I am following WP dispute resolution process, and have agreed to User:DragonflySixtyseven's suggestion of a compromise in order to resolve this dispute.[1] It should also be noted that User:Dbachmann and User:Dougweller are involved parties in this content dispute. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm involved, I haven't suggested I'm not involved. I've been trying to get you and others to see that this isn't a mathematical exercise where we are going to have proof that one is right and the other is wrong. There is a version that makes the dispute clear here [2] but I suspect you will cavil at the use of 'widely accepted' (which I think is correct at the moment, and the only academic I've found who has comment on Lambert is the one who told me the historians will have to battle it out). This article has been protected now since the 19th and due to the illness of the protecting admin is protected until the 9th. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what is happening here is that conduct issues involving NPOV and original research are stopping the resolution of a content dispute. CreazySuit and the other two editors (and apparently Khoikhoi too) subscribe to a pseudohistorical belief, promoted by the late Shah of Iran for propaganda reasons, that Cyrus the Great was a uniquely enlightened and humane ruler. They oppose anything which contradicts that POV, which mainstream historians do not support. An ancient chronicle describing the Battle of Opis is generally translated as referring to Cyrus carrying out a massacre after the battle. CreazySuit believes this is false. Because of this belief, he has repeatedly wiped out a sourced article, replacing it with an illiterate unsourced stub (see [3], [4], [5]).) He is seeking to declare that one particular translation of the chronicle is "the truth", that all others are "false" and "discredited" (his words) and that any research based on those translations is "outdated" and cannot be included. That is pure original research and about as clear a violation of NPOV as you can get. If he continues, it's inevitably going to end up before the Arbitration Committee. Content disputes can be resolved if everyone takes a good-faith approach to basic policies such as NPOV and NOR, but not if those policies are systematically disregarded, as CreazySuit is doing with the assistance of Ariobarza and Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a content dispute to me -- you bet it is a content dispute. What is being disputed is, should Wikipedia follow WP:ENC, or should it adhere to a basic "Iran is great" policy. Not for ANI? I don't know, maybe not these days. If it isn't, it certainly should be. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral problems almost always have an underlying content dispute. The policies in question are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CANVASS, tendentious editing, and disruptive editing. If those policies are not adhered to, there is no way to solve the content dispute via normal dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I would also add that resolving content disputes requires some acceptance of the basic principle of NPOV - "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The fundamental problem here is that CreazySuit has been insisting that one, and only one, viewpoint is "the truth" and that all other viewpoints are "outdated", "false" and "discredited" (his words), and on that basis deleting any material which refers to those viewpoints. If you take that sort of position, it doesn't give much room for solving a dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed the problem as I see it. If he (and Larno) would agree that (1) editors should not be making such judgements, (2) that latest, or made by someone's teacher, doesn't mean correct, and (3)acknowledge the possiblity that no one might be able to 'prove' this translation, we could get somewhere. But until then (well, (1) and (2) would be a start, (3) would be icing, we are not having a content dispute, we are having a dispute over whether policy should be followed (and common sense, I'd say also). I do not include Ariobarza in this at the moment. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And re (2) it's not even the latest translation - that title would belong to Amélie Kuhrt's (published August 2007), which corroborates Glassner's translation of 2004. CreazySuit appears to be wholly unaware of either translation; that's indicative of the lack of serious research going into this. All he's really doing is parroting the claims of page 12 of this tract by an Iranian-Canadian psychologist, which nationalists in the Iranian diaspora appear to have been circulating on the web (and which Ariobarza has been copying-and-pasting into talk pages). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of Battle of Opis

As discussed above, CreazySuit (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-based disruptive editing. Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Larno Man (talk · contribs) have also engaged in problematic editing. The main primary source for information on the battle is an ancient Babylonian chronicle. A line in the chronicle has generally been translated as indicating that Cyrus the Great carried out a massacre after the battle. The best-known modern translation is by a historian named Grayson (1975); similar translations are by Glassner (2004) and Kuhrt (2007). However, another historian named Lambert has published a dissenting translation in an obscure French journal in 2007, which so far appears to be uncited by any other academic source. Nationalists in the Iranian diaspora have latched onto this (see page 12 of this tract). CreazySuit, Ariobarza and Larno Man are seeking to declare this one translation to be authoritative. They argue that all other translations and research based on those are "outdated" and unusable. CreazySuit and Larno Man have tag-teamed to delete any material referring to those translations and research - even external links. In Ariobarza's case, he has also sought to falsify direct quotations from sources and add his personal commentary to the article. However, I would say that CreazySuit has been responsible for the most serious and sustained disruption.

This is a categorical violation of NPOV's basic principle: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It also violates WP:NOR. This conduct has seriously disrupted Battle of Opis and has resulted in it being protected for two weeks by DragonflySixtyseven. Diffs follow:

19:20, 14 August 2008 - Larno Man deletes an external link to a translation with edit summary: "livius translation is based on the flawed tranlation of Grayson"
08:36, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza deletes sourced content without comment
08:58, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza adds personal commentary to the article
09:13, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza falsifies a direct quotation
18:13, 18 September 2008 - Larno Man deletes all of the sourced content and replaces it with an incoherent unsourced stub
23:52, 18 September 2008 - CreazySuit deletes all of the sourced content and reverts to Larno Man's stub, with the edit summary "rv - ChirsO's version relies on an oudated theory and false translation, discredited by academia"
00:12, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit again reverts to the stub
01:38, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit again reverts to the stub and refers to the talk page, where he posts this. See also this comment to DragonflySixtyseven.
11:17, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit accuses me of anti-semitic motives. (How he jumps from the Battle of Opis to anti-semitism, I don't know - it's right out of left field but clearly a violation of civility.)

The article was then locked by DragonflySixtyseven and remains as an unsourced, badly written stub (compare before and after). I should add that I've since produced a longer version of the article, with more sources and translations, at User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the last of those diffs, he's accusing you of pro-semitism, not anti. Cyrus is quite highly regarded in Jewish history, because of his benevolence to the Jewish people. It seems he assumes you're Jewish and is accusing you of pro-Cyrus POV for that reason. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. If CreazySuit has anti-semitic views and assumes I'm Jewish (which I'm not), that puts a rather different light on why he's been so vehement on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd go so far as to say that edit shows anti-semitism. It's odd to have made the assumption, but not demonstrably anti semitic. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to ChrisO`s tendentious editing as a pro-Palestinian POV-pusher (for which he has been sanctioned by the ArbCom). I am myself supporter of the state of Israel, Cyrus`s decrees are of immense importance to the Jewish right of return to Israel. Given ChrisO`s history as a pro-Palestinian POV-pusher, several users [6] have argued that ChrisO`s tendentious editing on Cyrus-related pages is motivated by the I-P conflict, and his political views on Jewish right of return. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense as an explanation: you're accusing ChrisO of POV based on anti-Zionism. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't make much sense to me. How do we get from "translations say Cyrus committed a massacre" to "anti-Zionism"? It's one hell of a leap - that's why I called it an out of left field accusation. Does that mean that all the historians who I've quoted are "anti-Zionists" too? Frankly, I find this sort of guilt-by-association on both sides of the I-P conflict to be very tiresome and sleazy. It's just a way of tarring an opponent with a label that's thought to be damaging. I recall a fellow named McCarthy used similar tactics, once upon a time. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, I'm not suggesting it's an accurate accusation, and I apologise if that seemed to be the case. I have no knowledge of the dispute there. Just hamfistedly trying to help make sense of the accusation. I'll butt out now and stick to the Thermopylae issue at most, which I am informed about. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I didn't take your comments as endorsing CreazySuit's accusation. It's simply that I've clashed with I-P POV-pushers on a few occasions and CreazySuit has latched onto this to try to paint my contributions elsewhere in a bad light. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other disruption

I post below an edited version of a message I left at the deleted RfC. Do with it as you will. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Dweller
I have encountered User:Ariobarza in action at Battle of Thermopylae, its talk page and our talk pages. He's been pushing an OR take on the numbers of combatants, presumably because of POV. I gave up discussing with him because I couldn't cope with the walls of text he would post in response to simple questions, that totally ignored the points raised while frequently SHOUTING. The user seems to have WP:OWN issues to-boot and skates on thin ice of civility.
I posted at a WikiProject asking for outside views from Classicists, but no-one else seemed bothered by the dispute: the issue so tenaciously defended by the user is a number in an infobox and I have no plans on appearing in WP:LAME, so left him to it, rather saddened by the experience. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I dare say I can have a look at it; I'm a classicist myself, so this is right within my area of academic expertise. I would guess your trouble at Battle of Thermopylae is part of the ongoing problems that article's been having with Iranian nationalism ever since 300 (film) came out, which really, really pissed off those people. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My turn

Dweller I thought we settled this. First, I was never that passionate about Thermoplyae, but the reliability of Ctesias numbers. Second, I accused you (at first), of WP:OWN, because since I fairly know a good bit about the battle itself, and its topagraphy, I thought I could just add new information to it. I was suprised to see that after the Persians went on the offensive, the Greeks became nationalistic about Thermoplyae, and I dare say it is a VERY protected article. Furthermore I even came up with a solution, to include all the numbers, but I guess after all the supposed yelling, I did not recieve a yes or no from you, so its up to you to end this by giving me a message on my talk page. And do not forget, even Ctesias numbers are sourced, I know how it feels, I wished the Persian army was bigger too. Just go to the talk page of Thermoplyae for a better response, that for the most part agrees with, so I think that you might have seen it before, but if not, go there. Anyways, I just want to say for the record, ChrisO and others are currently at advantage, becuase they rampage everywhere on Wikipedia spreading this issue like a virus, until me and others are blocked. But I say... As a response to ChrisO, If I was such filled with Persian Pride, should'nt I be the one ranting all over Wikipedia to gain supporters for my agenda? ChrisO is on a one man crusade to expell Wikipedia of "barbarians" and their thinking, period. But, I'm still open to the thought that he might just be abusing his powers, and that he does want neutrality, but I am not sure, and I at least hope its the latter. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

See Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#More_Info.21 for the significant bulk of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, Ariobarza, I do want neutrality. I can't speak for the other editors involved in this dispute, but all I'm looking for from you is that (1) you respect the neutral point of view, by not constantly deleting every POV other than the one you favour; and (2) you respect the prohibition on original research by not constantly insisting on your personal interpretations, not making claims without citing any sources and not putting your personal commentary into articles. These aren't hard things to do. Thousands of contributors every day manage to do them without difficulty. Can't you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could and will. That is great to hear ChrisO, I am glad that you want neutrality, the main reason I never get time to explain my actions is because I am a fast editer, short on time and I am always in good faith, I sometimes dont get time to source the articles I edit and make. I Ariobarza pubicly apologize to all the users which I have made their lives harder. On the record, I never yell but it always appears that way, and as a mystery solver, I like come up with solutions. Nevertheless, other than some supposed uncivil behavior, I do not have a bad record on Wikipedia. But recently, because of the Battle of Opis issue, I am, other than being called names, is accused of these things;

1. Ariobarza deletes sourced content without comment. RE: I was going to replace it, and was short on time. 2. Ariobarza adds personal commentary to the article. RE: I added commentary that was not originally from me, but other historians who interpretated the text differently, specially at the time when I was not in favor of either view and the personal things were not mine to begin with. 3. Ariobarza falsifies a direct quotation. RE: No, I added extra different views to the article, after the direct quote if I remember correctly.

So as you can see, I need to make some improvements to my use of Wikipedia. And starting today I will begin. But if ChrisO is not willing to be civil and take me off his lists, I will still follow the rules, but not have respect for him. Anyways I am glad I am settling this here (I hope). And that ChrisO has FINALLY responded to me, and wants to neutral. The neutrality issue is something that I totally agree with ChrisO, and I have always been open to talks. But now I hope I can BEGIN direct talks with ChrisO on finally settling this issue. If you are ChrisO and reading this now, please respond below to mostly what this paragraph asks of you, and how you can be neutral on your own version of the Opis article (hint: add all the other translations with a neutral point of view). And seeing that you have done most of this, 'please' also go to the talk page of the Battle of Opis, there is something there that you might want to see, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Thanks for your recent (constructive) comments to the article's talk page. You've raised some fair points - I'll address them shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO`s conduct

I am writing a a detailed response which includes numerous diff links documenting ChrisO`s tendentious editing, suppression of opposing views, lack of civility, and total disregard for several policies ranging from WP:AGF to WP:Admin. It will be posted here within the next few hours. --CreazySuit (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so, what is this? Are we just conducting rfcs on this page instead of dedicated rfc pages? Or what? Dear admins, take a step back and consider DNFTT, all this section is good for is providing a platform for yet more filibustering and empty complaints in obvious attempts at dodging core policy, like the one immediately above. If you can be bothered, just go to the articles concerned, grok the issue, and clamp down on the pov-pushers. What we have here is the classic "experts are scum" phenomenon. ChrisO is a classicist, for crying out loud: exactly the kind of person we want to edit our articles on Classical Antiquity. He is being bugged by patriotic kids. You are here to help him, not to give him more grief. Also see Wikipedia:Expert retention. It's why we have admins: to use their brains. If it was just about clamping down on revert wars, we could replace our admins with very short shell scripts. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to help, but then CreazySuit showed up at my talk page to browbeat me with repetitive arguments.[7][8][9][10] I can understand why people would avoid getting involved. Who needs the grief. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point - win the game by working the referee(s) and discouraging anyone else from getting involved. It's an old and ugly tactic. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO`s conduct

ChrisO's conduct and behavior on Cyrus-related pages has been criticized by half a dozen editors, including several administrators as tendentious and problematic. [11] The diffs that ChrisO has cited are not what they seem to be at first glance, and should not be weighted and judged out of the context of the larger dispute.[12] It should also be noted that all these diffs are from over a week ago when a suspicious IP address from the same geographical area as ChrisO (seemingly a shared IP, possibly used as sock puppet) appeared out of nowhere to engage in an edit-war on behalf of ChrisO, on the disputed page, without as much as leaving a single comment on the talk page.[13] Since the protection of the page in question, I have done my best to follow the dispute resolution process, proposing some ideas of my own, and later agreeing to a third-party administrator's suggestion of a compromise that would cover both points of view in a fair and balanced way. ChrisO, however, has been unwilling to even recognize that there is a dispute, and has adopted a "my-way or no-way" attitude[14], going as far as attacking and bullying other administrators who had commented on the dispute and his conduct.[15][16] He has been constantly wikilawyering, picking and choosing what polices to cite in the heat of the moment, to best serve his attempts to advance his agenda and point of view, and has even openly contradicted himself while doing so [17][18]. He also has a total disregard for WP:AGF, lumping together his opponents, established users who come from a variety of backgrounds, and labeling them "Iranian nationalists", "vandals" etc. [19]

Further evidence of questionable conduct by ChrisO:

ChrisO threatens me with a block, in the middle of content dispute [20]
ChrisO attacks me personally, calling me crazy on at least two occasions [21][22]
ChrisO starts canvassing for help on Wikipedia administrators' IRC channel
Jayjg points out the irregularity of ChrisO's conduct [23]
ChrisO lashes out at Jayjg, attacking him personally [24]
ChrisO uses his administrative tools, in the middle of a dispute, to delete the disputed article's talk page and get rid of the evidence and diff links [25]

As documented above, things are not as black and white as some would have you believe, and I have yet to look up the more complex content-related diffs that document violations of WP:NPOV, WP:Verify and similar policies. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff I looked seems to be a misunderstanding. He does not seems to be threatening to block you himself. He is saying that if you continue to violate policy, you will be blocked. Presumably he would use a noticeboard to find an uninvolved administrator to review the matter and place a block. Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think CreazySuit was saying that he had violated these policies, which would on the face of it appear to be the case, in which case he shows commendable honesty and late-blooming self-knowledge and should be congratulated, once he's shown how he intends to address this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As another administrator pointed out [26], it wasn't the first time ChrisO had used his admin access to threaten opponents. As a matter of fact, he did it again today. --CreazySuit (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CreazySuit appears to have entered the "throw mud against the wall and see what sticks" phase. Dbachmann commented that "these users [meaning CreazySuit and pals] aren't receptive to feedback. They should just enter the warn-block cycle." [27] I said essentially, "yes, you're right." [28] I did not at any point say that I would be blocking anyone. This is, of course, obvious to anyone with a minimum of reading comprehension skills. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this is ridiculous. I've unprotected Battle of Opis: can someone please rv to the referenced version? If any of these punks reverts back we should just block them. They've been shown to have no case, so if they still refuse to get it, there really are no excuses left (p.s: "keep doing this and you may/will be blocked" is not intimidation unless you're in the mood to turn your skin uber-sensitive). Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should be blocking anyone. This is a content dispute and not a case of vandalism, and the talk page clearly shows that all involved parties are serious about achieving a neutral version of the article. Whether or whether not ChrisO's comment was made as intimidation, calling the opposing users "punks" is totally inappropriate. I also disagree with your unprotection of the article simply because you believe that the other side has "no case" (you yourself have already taken sides on the issue). Khoi khoi 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This seems like text book disruption by tendentious POV pushers, something that should escalate admins into blocking mode much more often and quickly than it does. It drives good editors away from the encyclopedia, unnecessarily clogs up AN/I and fosters further drama between admins and editors who aren't exactly fast friends. I'm not saying that we should go around calling people "punks" but lets not let someone's loose use of the English language lead us astray of the problems presented by this type of POV pushing.PelleSmith (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have not been involved in this dispute (and am blissfully ignorant of any matters Greek or Persian). However, I participated in a particularly muddled AfD debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh, where this bunch of people derailed the whole thing by continuously invoking inappropriate policies/guidelines and using bogus arguments like "the length of this debate demonstrates notability" and using amazon.com blurbs as "reliable sources". The article was kept as "no consensus", although the closing admin stated "I personally don't agree with the outcome". I find that strange, it doesn't square with the fact that an AfD is not a vote. Anyway, the behavior of the editors in question was hardly rational, without any inclination to enter into a real discussion and even listen to the other side's argument. --Crusio (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, aren't you involved in an edit war with the users that you just threatened to block? This is absurd. Khoi khoi 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what just happened here? The page was protected for edit warring, and then unprotected and reprotected to include the sourced version of the page? If I have my facts straight, it seems that the whole dispute centers around the factual accuracy of the sourced version of the article. Anyone who continues to edit war and/or wheel war will be blocked without warning. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. See below. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we might be headed for ArbCom sooner rather than later. User:Moreschi who is close associate of Dab and ChrisO, and an involved administrator himself [29] [30] unprotected the disputed article, so that it could be reverted to his preferred version and re-protected. He also goes on to threaten the opposing editors with a block, calling them "punks". I can't believe what I am seeing here. Abuse of administrative privileges can not get any more clear than this.--CreazySuit (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on a protected article

This is completely inexcusable. After Kafziel (talk · contribs) restored the sourced version of Battle of Opis and re-protected it, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) abused his admin access to resume the edit war and revert the article to an unsourced stub while the article was fully protected. [31] Note also that Khoikhoi has used the same NPOV-violating rationale as CreazySuit - that the cited translation is "false" (and who is Khoikhoi to declare the academic community wrong and eliminate all other points of view?). Admins edit-warring on a protected article is disgraceful. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unprotection itself was a violation of policy. Per WP:PREFER, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." No one should have unprotected the page to change the contents of the page to their preferred version, and no one should have edit warred back to a previous version of the page after protection had been applied. All around gross misuse of admin tools/editing privileges, and I hardly think WP:IAR is an applicable policy in this case. The dispute revolves around the reliability/accuracy of sources used in this article; protection was applied in the first place so people could take a time out and then discuss whether there's any truth to the claims made by Khoikhoi and CreazySuit. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is only about the "reliability/accuracy of sources" in as much as CreazySuit et al believe that only one source is accurate and all the rest are wrong, can't be used and must be deleted from the article. Fundamentally this is about the acceptability of sources that contradict a particular POV held by these editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't plan to get bogged down in this whole crazy thread, but I do want to say I don't think Moreschi's unprotection was inappropriate. It didn't further his own position because, at least as far as I could tell from the article's history, he doesn't have a position. The protection policy says administrators may also revert to an old version of the page prior to edit warring beginning if such a clear point exists. The version that is there is the version that came after ChrisO's first expansion and Larno Man's tagging as unbalanced, before the edit war started. So I don't think anyone (including Khoikhoi, at least not intentionally) has done anything wrong. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling that Moreschi's unprotection was not appropriate. He reversed an action by another admin, but without engaging in discussion with that admin. And that Moreschi was doing this in an emotional way,[32] with an edit summary of "Unprotected Battle of Opis: no, no, and no again. Admin neutrality does not mean we stick our heads in the sand", and then called other editors "punks",[33] increases my concerns. See Don't wheel war. If there was a feeling that the protection needed to be reversed, the better way to handle this would have been to contact the protecting admin, and/or starting a thread here at ANI to get input from other uninvolved admins first. There was no urgent need to unprotect the page, that justified this kind of unilateral action. --El on ka 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi's unprotection was entirely inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I guess I could see it as inappropriate from a wheel war perspective. Still, the edit summary gave me the impression Dragonfly was just protecting it for real-life health reasons (not feeling well and taking a break from the article) so I didn't think twice about Moreschi's unprotection. Well, anyone is certainly welcome to do what they think is right in terms of the page protection and content; no skin off my back, one way or the other. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how fully protecting a page for two weeks simply because one is not feeling well is appropriate at all. I thought full page protection was supposed to be invoked in the most limited manner possible. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be absolutely honest with you, I was thinking of asking Dragonfly to extend the protection so that the unresolved edit war wouldn't break out again immediately (as it plainly would have). I didn't do that, in the end, but simply reminded him by e-mail of the imminent expiry of protection; that probably prompted him to extend it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes it was indeed a mistake, I noticed that Moreschi had unprotected but I hadn't seen that Kafziel had suddenly reprotected it after the revert. However, as it has been pointed out, the unprotection and the subsequent reprotection was definitely inappropriate, as this was a valid content dispute regarding the use of an outdated translation and associated sources. The page should not have been unprotected by an involved admin in the first place. Khoi khoi 22:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then explain your edit summary ("no consensus for a version based on a false translation") which very clearly shows you supporting CreazySuit's NPOV-violating line that only one translation is "true" and all others are "false" and may not be mentioned? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, please recognize that others might differ with you over content without being vandals, POV-warriors, "ethnic nationalists", or any other pejoratives you might care to use. Please also realize that AN/I is not the place to air your content dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to deal amicably with content disputes, but when you get people like CreazySuit demanding that their POV be the only one documented and that everything else should be deleted because they think it's "false", that's simply not acceptable conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into content-related discussions with you here. I have already said what needed to be said on the relevant talk page. As Kafziel pointed out, "Our edits were only a minute apart so he probably had an edit conflict and didn't notice the protection." This is exactly what occurred. Khoi khoi 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned by the fact that administrators appear to have been edit-warring on the protected article.[34] This seems to have mainly been a tug of war between a version "A" and a version "B". The sequence of events I'm seeing is:

Administrator DragonflySixtyseven protected at Version "A"[35]
Administrator Moreschi unprotected[36]
Administrator Kafziel restored to a version "B"[37]
Administrator Kafziel re-protected the page[38]
Administrator ChrisO edited the page,[39] then reversed himself when he saw the page had been re-protected[40]
Administrator Khoikhoi reverted to version "A"[41]
Administrator Kafziel reverted to version "B".[42]

My own recommendation as to how to proceed would be to restore the page to version "A", as it was when Dragonfly first protected it (plus it's the shorter of the two versions), and then continue discussions from there. --El on ka 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version "A" is completely unsourced and poorly written. Which is more encyclopedic - an unsourced stub or a properly sourced article? CreazySuit had no business repeatedly wiping out a sourced article in the first place; he should have been blocked for that, quite honestly. Changing it again while protected is not going to achieve anything at this point. Just leave it as it is, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing properly sourced material often qualifies as vandalism. Please don't anybody do anything until the existing protection expires. The m:WrongVersion is the right one for now. Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate reason was provided for the removal of the sourced material, so as far as I know, it shouldn't be considered vandalism. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't remotely legitimate. CreazySuit, and now seemingly Khoikhoi, contend that one particular POV is "the truth" and all others are "false" and "outdated" (their words) and must be removed. That is as categorical a violation of NPOV and NOR as you can get. Remember, we're supposed to present all significant POVs, not just the one CS and KK favour (which isn't even the standard text used by historians anyway). What's more, neither of them have any business trying to determine which POV is "the truth" - they're not experts on ancient Babylonian texts. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration please

Take this dispute to arbitration, please, before anybody gets into deep(er) trouble. Community processes are obviously failing to resolve this, and there are evidently multi-party behavioral issues that need investigation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that "community processes" like AN/I rarely work when most of the admins commenting are involved to some degree or another, if even just in terms of past bad blood. I've noticed that truly uninvolved admins tend to stay clear of these situations. Do inter-admin spats have to go to Arbcom every time? Would this simply have been dealt with by the community if there weren't involved admin opposition? A good question to consider if you are interested in improving this process.PelleSmith (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is classic disruptive editing. Many admins don't want to intervene against nationalistic teams. They can be quite difficult to deal with. This matter does require arbitration, I think, because it has already resulted in admins undoing and redoing each other's actions, which is always a bad sign. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at this, but have only gotten as far as reading through the talk page of Battle of Opis--I haven't gone through the article history yet. From what I've seen so far, though, I would have to say that Ariobarza, CreazySuit, and LarnoMan are editing tendentiously. I don't know that arbitration is the answer, but I have little faith in AN/I to solve problems. I would not characterize this as a content dispute; the editors who think that Lambert's translation has superseded all previous scholarship are misunderstanding how scholarship in the humanities works, and, more importantly, several central Wikipedia policies, i.e., NPOV and V. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As I stated already I'm in full agreement that this looks like text book disruptive POV pushing. I think the community can and should deal with that, which is the initial problem here. Unfortunately it was not dealt with by going into block mode, as Dab suggested, in order to control the tendentious editing. Instead admins siding with the POV pushers and/or simply without love for those fighting the POV pushers started chastising the very editors we should be praising for slogging through the thankless task of keeping nationalist POV nonsense out of this encyclopedia. With this kind of admin on admin action, it has been my observation, that truly non-involved admins tend to stay away. That was really my main point. I don't think Arbcom is necessary, just a few uninvolved admins who aren't scared off by inter-admin spats, and I see FT2 is making an attempt below.PelleSmith (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem as I see it is CreazySuit. It's certainly true that Ariobarza made some tendentious edits at the start (he started the article, so may have some sense of WP:OWNership) but seems to have desisted after I explained the problems with his edits on his talk page. CreazySuit, however, has simply doubled down: he is insisting that only his favoured interpretation is "the truth" and is allowing only that perspective to appear in the article. That is, as you say, text-book disruptive POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions

The actual admin issues here seem to be as follows:

Kafziel (talk · contribs) (not a party) reverted the text to a version he chose, stating "replacing sourced version", then protected it. The general rule is a protecting admin should be neutral as to versions. If one version is grossly out of line (vandalism etc), then perhaps there might be a case to revert then protect, but if so this needs justifying. Kafziel needs to explain why he chose a version before applying protection, because most times that is quite an improper sequence.
Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) (not a party) edits through protection to reinstate the version they feel is appropriate. The edit summary reads "no consensus for a version based on a false translation". As above, unless this version is based on gross misinformation or the like, that blatantly obviously cannot be allowed to stand, this is quite improper. Even if unfounded the talk page is a good place to get consensus that it's unfounded. Khoikhoi needs to explain why he felt that this case justified editing through protection. Most times there is no justification - admins have that access in order to make non-contentious and admin-type edits, not to be able to choose a preferred version.

Unless a good reason is given, both of these actions are improper and wrongly done. These norms are very strongly held for good reason, to draw a bright line preventing admins from edit warring with the tools. Only in very rare, or well recognized, or non-controversial cases, is there likely to be genuine cause to breach them. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases. But I could be wrong. Rather than a "pile-on" discussion, may I suggest simply, a statement by each as to the above, and no "pile-on" when they are posted.

The sole question is whether sufficient good cause for these actions, is given. That doesn't need arbitration to decide, if people keep calm.

Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel has given his reason above: "The protection policy says administrators may also revert to an old version of the page prior to edit warring beginning if such a clear point exists. The version that is there is the version that came after ChrisO's first expansion and Larno Man's tagging as unbalanced, before the edit war started." [43] Khoikhoi has declined to say why he used that edit summary (edit of 23:55, 26 September 2008): "I am not going to get into content-related discussions with you here." [44] I look forward to seeing an explanation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained myself right here. I was not aware of the reprotection. How does my edit summary have anything to do with this? Khoi khoi 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the question is simply, whether uninvolved users feel both explanations are reasonable. Neither admin was previously involved in the edit war, and both have given an explanation. Are the two admin action sequences reasonable in light of the explanations given and policy (WP:PROTECT, WP:ADMIN)? If not, is protection policy at fault, or the admin actions, or neither. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not reasonable. Especially the sentence, "Khoikhoi needs to explain why he felt that this case justified editing through protection." Khoi khoi 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary shows, very obviously, that you believe CreazySuit's view that the translation is "false", and that you offered that reason as justification for reverting the article. If you'd said simply "no consensus for this version" that would have been one thing, but you went further and asserted positively that the version you reverted was "false". That's your own POV speaking. As I've said repeatedly to CreazySuit on the article talk page and elsewhere, neither you nor he have any business trying to determine which academic's translation is "true" or "false". All we're supposed to do here is "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", per WP:NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what does this have to do with the page protection? This is totally irrelevant to what FT2 is talking about. Khoi khoi 23:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may need to re-state that (sorry). Both admins were uninvolved. Both have given an explanation. The sole admin issue here is three questions:

For Kafziel: - Does the community feel that an uninvolved admin reverting to the version before edit warring, immediately prior to protection, is okay? (If not, is WP:PROTECT misleading?) Was the version reverted a reasonable pre-edit war revision?
For Khoikhoi: - Does the community agree that editing through protection was reasonable in this circumstance? (Or that it was a genuine mistake)
For protection generally: - when an admin has protected an article, should another uninvolved admin be able to unprotect it without discussion? (And if then left unprotected should another admin then reprotect it if it looks like the edit war is continuing?)

There is no RFAR needed, just thoughtful consensus seeking on those three points. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Updated with general 3rd point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "no RFAr needed", are you referring just to this specific business with the two admins, or are you describing the whole situation - including CreazySuit's conduct that I documented earlier? Resolving the issue with Karziel and Khoikhoi will not address the outstanding problems with CreazySuit. Secondly, Khoikhoi is not "uninvolved". He has previously posted on the article's talk page, arguing that he believes the translation promoted by CreazySuit to be "more credible" than the others (and how does he know this, exactly? - it's original research again). See Talk:Battle of Opis#Comment. He has clearly expressed a preference as to which version he prefers. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically and only the admin actions. I reckon the community can handle the edit war and any POV or OR editing. It's the possibility of wheel warring that's the problem issue. If that gets addressed here, then we're all on the same page about the admin issues, then the possible "OMG wheel war" won't carry over into other areas covering the edit war. Admins can then handle that with whatever means are appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's kind of weird that my name is in the title of this thing now, when I'm probably the least-involved admin in the whole discussion, but okay. I can take five minutes for this, and that's about all I can do. I still haven't even read enough of the article to see exactly what it's about, but it's like 2500 years old so I really don't care enough to spend too much more time on it.

If someone is wondering about my revert of Khoikhoi when the article was protected, see his talk page (and mine). It wasn't a wheel war or anything like that; I was trying to help him out because he (as he has said) mistakenly edited the protected version and I knew ChrisO was upset about that. And, yes, Moreschi probably should have asked Dragonfly to remove the protection, but I haven't seen Dragonfly complaining. For those concerned with the extremely long duration of the page protection, I completely agree. I used Dragonfly's original end date & time, and I will have no problem if someone wants to shorten it or remove it completely. It seems quite excessive to me. I'm pretty comfortable with my tiny part in this, particularly the fact that the article has been sitting peacefully for a couple of hours now, so I guess that's about all I have to say about the whole thing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin inactions

I am getting increasingly fed up here. It's a depressing day when the admin corps seems to have collectively turned its brain off. Protection of this version - until 9th October! - is utterly inappropriate when the alternative is this version. I don't buy this false translation business either: translation of these languages is never a clear-cut business, there will always be interpretation involved, and the fact that Lambert disagrees with Grayson (whom most people seem to agree with) is faithfully reported in a footnote, as respectable minority academic positions should be dealt with.

I know full well I cannot block anyone here, and I never threatened to block anyone myself: I am relying on the rest of you to deal with these problem users for me. In unprotecting the article I did not then revert to my preferred version because this would constitute abuse of admin tools. Seeing that Dragonfly was ill, I assumed he wouldn't be up to replying to messages, and, guess what , one unprotection of a bad protection does NOT constitute wheel-warring (technically, Kafziel's reprotection does, but since I have no issue with that, it doesn't. And I'm sure Khoikoi didn't realise he was editing through protection - it is easy to do). The issue here is not wheel-warring or edit-warring on any sort of warring. The issue here is dealing with the POV-pushing from this Iranian trio (for more info on Creazysuit, see here).

Our job as administrators is not just clamping down on warring. If that were all, we might as well all be replaced by a particularly well-coded bot (hell, the technology for this is probably there already, given the sort of wonders Werdna et al regularly produce). Our job is to maintain, protect develop the encyclopedicity of this website. This requires judgment, something automatic-protection-bots-after-6-reverts-in-one-day will always lack. That means, in situations like this, making a genuine attempt to come to terms with the real issues at hand. That is, we have one version which is clearly massively superior to the other: you don't even need to have a classics background (which I do) to see this. Therefore, you do not go and slap a sysop-only protection until first late September and then early October onto a completely unreferenced and inferior version. This is just common sense. Of course, often there will be cases (in fact, the majority) where both versions being put forward are inadequate, and encyclopedicity lies in a compromise. In such instances protection is appropriate. But this is not such an instance. And you don't need to be classicist to see this. C'mon, guys, use your brains. Moreschi (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustrations. Frankly, I think many people see a dispute such as this, think "too difficult" or "too ugly" and pass by on the other side of the road. I agree that it's dismaying that allegedly experienced editors can look at an unreferenced stub and think it's just as encyclopedic as a detailed, referenced article. The bottom line in this particular dispute is that an external political dispute is being imported into Wikipedia. A few people hold a certain POV, campaign off-wiki in favour of that POV, and reject mainstream academic views on the issue at hand because it conflicts with their POV. We have well-established policies to deal with that. We have admins empowered to deal with disruptive editors who systematically violate NPOV. All that is required is people who are actually willing to act on such disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action

I see a rough consensus that ArbCom is not needed, and that the community should deal with this. I started this thread because I wanted uninvolved editors to provide input before I took action. My finding is that CreazySuit (talk · contribs) has been editing disruptively and tendentiously, and shows no sign whatsoever of backing down. Therefore, I am going to block them until such time as they undertake, convincingly, to follow policy. I have not edited the article ever, and have never encountered this editor before. It is longstanding policy that a disruptive editor does not get to choose the administrator who responds to their disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PelleSmith, FT2, and Akhilleus and others for your input. The issue of page protection needs to be resolved. I would favor unprotecting to see if the remaining editors can work out a satisfactory version of the page, now that the disruptive editor has been removed from the locus of dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest unprotecting but watchlisting the article closely for further trouble. I've been working on an expanded version of the article, amended to give more prominence to the minority POV that CreazySuit favours - see User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis. I'd be the last one to claim it was perfect but I think it's a reasonable starting point. Of course, that assumes that the other editors are willing to accept that POVs they don't agree with should be mentioned in the article, which wasn't the case with CreazySuit and Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks reasonable. This isn't a case of WP:FRINGE, actually, it's just Creazysuit and the others trying to give undue weight to a respectable but minority opinion within academia. Minority non-fringe opinions should be given proper representation, but the fact that the majority opinion is, well, majority needs to mentioned.

More generally, the generic trend here of treating ancient documents such as the Cyrus cylinder with perfect credulity needs to be resisted. Guys, it's always propaganda. This is like treating the Behistun Inscription as historical fact (can I check your ears?)! That Herodotus, whom we also need to treat with extreme caution, swallows this nonsense doesn't mean that we have to too. Moreschi (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That point about credulity is very, very important. That was actually one of the first things that got drummed into me when I took my first history degree years ago. Rulers aggrandize themselves; they always do. You simply can't take something like the Res Gestae Divi Augusti or, for that matter, a speech by a modern politician and regard every word in it as the absolute, unbiased truth. Of course, what's going on here is that history is (as usual) being used as the handmaiden of modern politics. The cylinder is being treated with such credulity because it suits the interests of political activists and religious fundamentalists. A case in point - I'm now getting stick from Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who's started edit-warring on Cyrus cylinder, insisting that my use of mainstream historical sources is "part of a larger attempt to discredit Cyrus and this cylinder" on behalf of those who "would prefer that Jews did not have an historical claim to Jerusalem". Which is nuts, of course. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris. Once again badmouthing me all over wiki, characterising my edits as "warring" when your edits require a trip to London to substantiate. Once again, I have made my arguments at the appropriate talk page. Please do not find any excuse to drag my name around. I have a talk page if you have a problem with me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors might wish to examine the RSN on the Daily Mirror to understand the difficulties some editors have with Reliable Sources. It is particularly disappointing when such editors make it clear they are not planning to respect the consensus of the community - this after detailed explanation in a section running to 7,000 words, most of it taking up the time of much, much more experienced (and scholarly) editors. (There would also seem to have been quite inappropriate CANVASSING in this case). PR^talk 09:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the article. Have at it, fellas, and good luck. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course, what's going on here is that history is (as usual) being used as the handmaiden of modern politics." Very good point. If we cracked down on this kind of thing we'd solve half the problems with our history articles.--Folantin (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and disagree on the perception of the consensus of this thread. My own thoughts on the apparent consensus are:

CreazySuit was editing tendentiously on the Battle of Opis article, engaging in an edit war by reverting an article which relied on several sources, to an unsourced stub.[45][46][47]
Multiple admins were engaging in inappropriate use of their admin tools on this article:
- Moreschi, reversing a protection without engaging in a discussion with the previous admin
- Kafziel, making a content decision between versions (to the longer sourced version), and then protecting the page after his decision
- Khoikhoi, also making a content decision between versions (to the shorter unsourced version), and editing the page while it was protected.

There also appears to be a rough consensus that the language of administrators ChrisO and Moreschi was inappropriate, as they should not have been referring to other editors with name-calling, such as "vandals" and "punks".

I see that Jehochman has placed an indefinite block on CreazySuit; however, I do not feel that there was a consensus that this is the appropriate action. In fact, the term "indefinite block" did not appear once in this entire thread. I therefore recommend unblocking CreazySuit, until/unless there is a clear consensus, from uninvolved voices, that an indefinite block is the proper way to proceed. --El on ka 18:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said all I need to say about this. Dragonfly isn't complaining about Moreschi's actions. Khoikhoi's edits were clearly a mistake, and he would have reverted them himself if he had realized it in time. As for myself, the protection policy allows for an uninvolved admin—that's me to a T—to choose an appropriate pre-edit war version before protecting a page. If you don't like that, change the policy. If you want to make something more of this, go for it. Just send me a link to the RFAR or whatever. Next issue. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor blanks a sourced article, we consider it vandalism and give him a warning or block him. If an editor replaces a substantial sourced article with a five-line stub for POV reasons, I have no qualms about calling that an act of vandalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block was over the top in my opinion, given this user's previously clean block log. CreazySuit has engaged in edit warring on a number of other articles in the past, but none of the tendentious or disruptive edit warring has occurred in the last few days. At this point, such a block appears entirely unnecessary. I would recommend that this user either be placed in a mentoring program, because I believe this user does have good intentions, but too frequently gets himself entangled with policy. Note that I have no affiliation with this user; in fact, I warned this user a few weeks ago to stop edit warring or else be blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you familiarize yourself with the details of the situation by reading my non-templated block notice, you will see that this block can be lifted very soon. It is not meant to be an infinite block; indefinite means undetermined length of time. It is my hope that the block will be lifted very soon. All the user needs to do is, "convince the Wikipedia community that you will follow its policies and guidelines". If the user posts an unblock notice that sincerely shows a willingness to stop editing tendentiously (as Elonka has correctly identified their behavior above), I am ready to unblock them immediately, and any other administrator may do so as well if I am unavailable to act. Of course, once the user undertakes to follow policy, any further tendentious or disruptive editing may be met with warnings or re-blocking. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I fully understand the intent of the block. All I'm saying is that I disagree with this approach (block indefinitely, unblock if they promise not to misbehave), namely because the tendentious editing in question occurred more than a week ago. I have acknowledged that this user has engaged in tendentious editing and this user can be reformed if he is mentored by an administrator, and as stated above, I am willing to take on this responsibility. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tendentious editing stopped because the article was protected, not because the user turned over a new leaf. Nonetheless, thank you for your very generous offer to mentor them. I have unblocked them so you can do that. I had not expected an offer of mentorship, but I am confident that you will help them say on the right side of policy. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on, Nishkid. I wish you success. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a block of some sort was certainly in order for the disruptive editing, but whether it needs to be indefinite is another question. I stand by what I said on his user talk page about not wishing to see CreazySuit banned. If he agrees to edit in a non-disruptive fashion - and mentoring certainly sounds like a good idea - then I would not oppose a block reduction. However, I note that up to the point that he was blocked, CreazySuit showed no sign whatsoever of "getting it". Sometimes it's necessary to use the big stick to convince people that the rules have to be taken seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a case of a user who had received multiple warnings and blocks, then it might be appropriate to use an indefinite block until they promise to behave. But in this case, CreazySuit had a completely clean block log: CreazySuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) His primary offense seems to have been that he engaged in some unwise edit-warring at a couple articles. I do not feel that this is enough to justify an indefinite block. I also have concerns with the way that Jehochman seems to be coming in as ChrisO's wingman on multiple disputes. If this has become a situation where one admin participates in content wars, and they have a buddy admin who follows along and blocks any opponents, this is a major concern. Jehochman said that there was a consensus for this indefinite block, and even in the block log, put an explanation of Per discussion at AN/I However, this ANI discussion did not give authority for such a block, which meant that the block reason was in error. Therefore the block should be lifted. --El on ka 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recommend that they can be unblocked liberally, as soon as the post any sort of polite request that shows a willingness to follow policy. If they post a combative request, or want to stand firm that they were doing nothing wrong, that sort of request should be denied. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I posted what I called a "modest proposal" on CS's talk page asking him to modify his behaviour in four ways (see [48]). I would hope that nobody here disagrees with the suggestions I've made. This rant was his response. I was particularly unimpressed with the way he invented things, such as the claim that I called him a "Shah lover". Perhaps he was confusing me with someone else he was having a POV dispute with. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good call. CreazySuit was actively asking Jehochman to recuse himself mere hours before this indef.[49] This block creates an appearance of impropriety: we know individuals watch this board who are all too eager to accuse the admin corps of corruption. The problem would have been easy to avoid: An immediate indef wasn't necessary even if it were justified (and there are doubts that it was justified). I know all too well the dangers of using the admin tools in ways that create an unintended impression of silencing dissent. Learn from my example, Jehochman. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editors do not get to choose who responds to their request. Durova, please familiarize yourself with the underlying circumstances carefully. What you are saying is that any disruptive editor can knock out an administrator by posting a few words on their talk page. I had thought about blocking them, but decided to bring the matter here for discussion, first. As I have posted above, the user has been very persistently violating policy, causing great amounts of disruption. What length of block do you think is appropriate? Will the user change after 24 or 48 hours when they have apparently been editing tendentiously for a much longer time? Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the sole reason CreazySuit was "actively asking Jehochman to recuse himself" was because of a claim by Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who has conflicted with me previously over POV editing and is currently disputing my edits to Cyrus cylinder, a related article. This is just a case of one disgruntled editor latching onto a tendentious claim by another disgruntled editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, if an established editor's statement confuses you it is better to ask for clarification than to try to put words the person's mouth. That is not what I am saying. It is no accident that my post is silent about the merits of the editor's request. If the request were meritless and the community agreed to indef that would have been apparent soon enough. It would certainly have been appropriate to use the tools if he or she made threats, or when community consensus is clear. Editors who are truly disruptive seek to muddy the waters, and by choosing to use the tools at that juncture you provided an opportunity to do so that need not have existed. The loaded question you pose is telling. Step back a moment, please, and ask whether this approach draws more attention to the editor's choices or to your own. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman has lifted the block and dropped CreazySuit into Nishkid's capable hands as a mentee. In the interests of drama reduction, perhaps we could consider this issue closed? I can't see further discussion of the rights and wrongs of blocking getting us anywhere useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the block. Tendentious editing is a major problem--it causes burnout among editors who try to fight against it and leads to lower-quality articles. We should take strong steps to stop tendentious editors. Of course, if CreazySuit wants to edit non-disruptively, we should unblock him. Mentoring sounds like a good plan, and I would recommend that CreazySuit avoid articles dealing with ancient history for awhile.

I can't say I'm familiar with CreazySuit's editing history, but I'm gathering that Battle of Opis is not the only article on which he's edited disruptively. Furthermore, if I'm understanding Moreschi's comment correctly, he may have edited before under a different username, which suggests there may be a longer history here that we need to be aware of. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is the only productive thing that all of these KB of conversation have produced so far, and tendentious POV pushing is a much bigger problem than the minor slip ups of admins and editors who work to stop it. Sometimes admins abuse their powers in ways that hurt this project, but what I see here is nothing of the sort, just unnecessary drama.PelleSmith (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bigger backstory. I can't go into much detail about it, because of privacy concerns, but there are suspicions that CreazySuit is a reincarnation of an editor previously sanctioned (under a different username) by the ArbCom for edit-warring on Iran-related articles. I would ask people not to speculate at this stage - no doubt the facts will become clearer eventually. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that proves to be true, appropriate actions will be taken. Meanwhile, I trust Nishkid64 to keep an eye on the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential abuse of admin tools

In looking through the history at Talk:Cyrus cylinder, I am concerned by one other action. Administrator ChrisO, who was very much involved in the conflict there, deleted the talkpage in order to remove a comment by (involved) administrator Jayjg (talk · contribs). I have looked at the comment, and am a bit confused as to whether or not it should have been deleted in such an extreme fashion. And even if it should have been deleted, was it so egregious that it should have been deleted immediately by involved admin ChrisO? My feeling is "no" on both counts, but I would be interested in what other administrators think. The deleted edit can be seen here (admins only): [50] --El on ka 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being new to this dispute, there's a lot for me to catch up on. I don't think I'm revealing too much by saying that referring to actions on IRC does not violate anybody's privacy IMO. If ChrisO thought this should've been deleted, he should have had someone else do it for him. I am in favor of restoring this edit as a matter of principle. Oren0 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The background to this is that Jayjg posted a description of a private discussion on the IRC admins' channel, apparently for the sole purpose of stirring things up on the talk page. This was a gross violation of the channel's rule of privacy. Jayjg admitted shortly afterwards that he was obtaining real-time information from the channel even though he is not on the access list - again in violation of the channel's rules. It is at the very least bad form for an admin to violate inter-admin confidentiality, and even worse form to do so for no reason than apparent spite. WP:DELETE permits the use of the tool to remove invasions of privacy, which I judged this to be. Logs are available (in confidence) to admins who wish to review the IRC discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Oren0, if ChrisO wanted this to be deleted, he should have asked for an outside opinion from an uninvolved administrator. Despite your explanation, I still think Jayjg's remark was a bit too ambiguous to be a violation of privacy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that a mere mention of a conversation that happened on the admin IRC channel violates privacy? I understand that this may violate the IRC rules, but those rules have no affect here on the site; as I'm sure you know the IRC channels are not an official part of Wikipedia. Maybe Jayjg violated your privacy by "listening in" to the IRC channel. Maybe there's action to be taken as a result of that. But the question to be asked is whether posting a vague reference to those conversations (looking through his deleted contribs, I don't see any evidence he posted logs, quotes, or anything of the sort to Wikipedia) violates Wikipedia's privacy, or more generally whether it violates anyone's common-sense definition of privacy. To me, the answer is no. Therefore, I don't see why the comments should have been removed. Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, you said, "Jayjg admitted shortly afterwards that he was obtaining real-time information from the channel." Could you please provide a diff of this? Where are you getting this information from? Thanks, --El on ka 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer from ChrisO, apparently. I wonder, if his claim is true, is his publishing it a "gross violation of privacy"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a suitable topic for discussion, on a different thread or page. This matter is quit tangential to the original topic. Could we please allow this thread to be archived, as it will help reduce the size of this already very lengthy page. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, let's see how it all plays out. I'm quite interested in Chris's response to Elonka's question of 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ChrisO should have done this deletion, but the "abuse" here seems so trivial that it's not worth adding anything on this matter to an already overly-lengthy thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result

So, finally, the article is at a sane version. Written by ChrisO. Wonderful! Does anyone else feel like congratulating him for actually doing his job here? No? Too busy bickering, I guess.

On the other hand, significant issues remain. That a relatively uncomplicated case of how to deal with Iranian nationalist POV-pushing should cause such immense drama is ridiculous. Luckily we have still got the right result, despite a number of unhelpful interventions. That the vendettas caused by the bitter al-Durrah affair have spilled over here is upsetting. WTF is Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) doing trolling Cyrus cylinder? I shouldn't think he knows anything about it for a minute. Another pattern is also developing: every time a controversy involving ChrisO or myself arrives on ANI, the Elonka/Jehochman catfight also gets imported in under the guise of helpful but opposing interventions.

You two. I don't care about your mutual spat. Sort that out between yourselves. But importing it into my affairs is just plain annoying. Here it led to Elonka ludicrously saying that I wheel-warred purely because she's formed this ludicrous view that I'm some crazy abusive admin based on my criticism, expressed at RFC, of her handling of various disputes, and Jehochman, equally ludicrously, blocking CreazySuit indef, just to piss off Elonka. No, he does not have a clean block log, and yes, the encyclopedia might well be better off as a result, but you knew that was never going to stick. So why do it? It will just make it 10 times harder to deal with Creazy/ManiF/Mardovich in the future.

I have other things to do. Articles to write. Topics to maintain. POV-pushers to block. I do not have the time to deal with your petty wiki-politics. I don't play this sort of game. It's boring. And it's not your job as admins. Where you can't write the content yourself, your task is act as a facilitator: to aid the people who can. In this case, ChrisO (the fact that Chris is also an admin is incidental here and irrelevant). Elonka and Jehochman - that is your goal, and as for your feud, which is truly reaching epic proportions - save that for Wrestlemania, where they appreciate this sort of thing. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it looks like Elonka and I were partly in agreement. I definitely wasn't trying to piss her off, and I don't think she was trying to bother me. We both thought the editor was tendentious, but had different ideas about how to respond. We operate in the same areas of the encyclopedia and will have to learn how to get along, sooner or later. Elonka is welcome to question or oppose my opinions or actions any time. So, Moreschi, sorry for spoiling your day. I will go back to editing shipwreck articles... Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. I'll assume good faith then: for all I know your participation here was entirely innocent. And in fairness, you were involved in this thread before Elonka, upon review. But...upon review of the thread I see Elonka, with her usual unerring knack, completely missing the point (~~and she acknowledges the tendentious editing where?~~ found it now). Instead of pinpointing the real issue, she's just waffled about how horribly we all use our admin tools. In fact, at one point she even advocates restoring the quasi-vandalized version (and yes, this language is appropriate). What is going on here? This is such a clear-cut case - the Iranian nationalists count for nothing besides getting ChrisO's decent version(s) up there. Thanks to Kafziel, this has been done. But look: we cannot establish hard-and-fast rules for every instance of this sort - the only rule that counts is that fixing the article is always the end goal. In the midst of vendetta some people here seem to have completely lost sight of this. I see you and Elonka are also sparring over pseudoscience articles - disengage, the pair of you. Moreschi (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, I'm not going to bother to respond to the multiple bizarre statements there, except to say that such language is not becoming of an administrator. And I will continue to stand by this statement: When one admin takes an action, another admin should not undo that action, unless there is a clear consensus to do. This is not a guideline, this is policy: Don't wheel war. There have now been multiple occasions where you (Moreschi) seem to feel that because you know what's best for the wiki, that you can go and arbitrarily reverse other administrators' actions. Please stop this practice. --El on ka 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Have you actually even read WP:WHEEL? I know it's recently been rewritten - and for the worse - but still "An administrator undoes another administrator's actions without consultation" is only listed as a possible indicator of wheel-warring. I take the view that WP:BRD applies to admin actions as well (it certainly applies to mine: although I prefer people to discuss before undoing something, I realise they are not bound to to so). And in this instance, seeing as Dragonfly had publicly announced sickness, it was reasonable to assume he wasn't up for extensive chats about his protection log! And what "multiple occasions"? Ok, occasionally I'll undo blocks made for bad reasons of established users (Paul Barlow and Matthew jump to mind) without going through the ANI drama-llama process, but this is hardly massively controversial and it's never led to a wheel-war proper. "Wheel-warrior" is sexy mud to throw, but the claim does require some basis in reality. Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOCK currently says not to unblock without discussion, but there is no such statement I am aware of in WP:WHEEL. Elonka deserves credit for not unblocking the user, even though she obviously disagreed with the block. That was well handled. Within about an hour we came to a resolution via discussion. Recently I noted in WP:BLOCK that independent reviews of unblock requests can take action without discussion, because that has always been our custom. A user can't run to their favorite admin to undo a block, but if they post an unblock request whichever uninvolved admin responds has the ability to review the block and make a decision on the spot. Perhaps this discussion could be continued on the relevant policy page with necessary clarifications to policy being made so that we all have a common understanding of how things should work. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate block

It appears to me that we may have a consensus by uninvolved administrators (which excludes me) that Jehochman's block of CreazySuit was out of line. He is not viewed as an uninvolved admin in this case, and most importantly there was no consensus for a block in the first place. Therefore, the initial block and subsequent unblock with the "terms and conditions" were entirely inappropriate. I urge Jehochman and other admins involved with ChrisO (such as Moreschi) to refrain from using administrative tools in the disputed page or related topics in the future. Khoi khoi 03:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to second that. There was no consensus for the block; nor, for that matter, was there any consensus for unprotecting the page so that it could be "restored" to the "correct" version either. Please let uninvolved admins take actions here in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You (Khoikoi) have stated a POV position in the content dispute that precipitated this mess when you mistakenly edited during page protection. This to me, an uninvolved observer makes you involved here as well and unfit to make these types of judgments. Of course much of the discussion above is between variously "involved" admins. Can we get some truly uninvolved admins to pass some judgments here? Seriously.PelleSmith (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't count Jay on the list of the "uninvolved". Seriously I know there are a ton of admins on Wikipedia that have no history with any of this or any of the editors/admins at the heart of this. Really its true I swear.PelleSmith (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you "uninvolved", PelleSmith? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I? The difference is that I, the lowly non-admin editor, am just putting in my two cents but when an admin puts in their two cents on this board its starts adding into some unofficial "consensus" count or another. I just think admins with a bad history ought not to comment here as admins on each other. Nothing personal.PelleSmith (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me not to comment as an admin, because I am one. Oddly enough, you didn't have any issue with the actual involved admins commenting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I "uninvolved"? Because I already said that I thought the block was fine, and I agree with the unprotection as well. I never really know exactly how people decide whether an admin is "involved", though--as far as I can tell, Jehochman had never edited Battle of Opis and has only edited its talk page once, but somehow there are claims that he's "involved". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an observer I don't quite understand those claims personally. My comment is directed towards those involved on the page itself and also those admins who swarm like flies to sh*t when they see a foe's name on this message board. If there is history I really think its best to stay clear of adding one's authority as an admin towards one judgment or another on this board - because as admins it weighs on the discussion more heavily than comments by non-admin onlookers, for instance. That's really all I'm saying.PelleSmith (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited the Battle of Opis article either. From what I could see though, the block was not appropriate. Jehochman placed an indefinite block on an editor (the editor's first ever block), and Jehochman cited "per ANI" as the block reason. But there was definitely no consensus for the block at ANI, especially as the term "indefinite block" had not come up even once. --El on ka 05:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response to Jayjg.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the block has been lifted now, I think a discussion of whether the block was appropriate or not is a waste of time and energy. The correct end result has I believe been reached. I'm entirely uninvolved and have sought to remain so, Western Australian political topics produce so much less drama. :) Orderinchaos 07:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "the damage has been undone and therefore we should just forget about a potential misuse of admin tools" seems silly. If I vandalized the main page and it was quickly fixed, would I be justified in saying "talking about my vandalism is a waste of time because the main page was fixed"? Of course not. While I haven't looked into this in enough detail to determine whether Jehochman is involved or not, I do believe that an indefinite first block was egregious in this case and I also believe that "per AN/I" implies a consensus to block which didn't seem to exist. To be clear, I'm not suggesting any actions be taken against anyone here, I just think it's important as a community that we are constantly reviewing each other's potentially controversial actions and maintaining an understanding of what is and isn't OK. If I screw up using admin tools, I want to know about it. Oren0 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse is a fairly strong word - it has implications which I don't think can be read from the circumstances. To say it was likely mistaken or questionable would probably be closer to the facts. I don't doubt Jehochman enacted it in good faith, or with any intent to not comply with our blocking policy. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest a block was one of the remedies available - although indefinite was likely too harsh. I think sometimes we get carried away with reviewing things and flogging dead horses to the point where noone wants to do anything in case someone objects loudly and creates drama that the enactor has neither the time nor will to deal with. It also makes it more difficult to draw attention to real abuses of power (which do happen) in a classic "boy who cried wolf" kind of situation. Personally I feel sorry for anyone with any mind to review this situation neutrally who has to read 19 screens (at 1280x960 resolution - more on lower ones) and probably still won't have any clearer idea of what has happened. Orderinchaos 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem concerned the upholding of WP norms for writing mainstream history articles on the classical period, problems correctly identified by Chris0. A POV-pusher consistently attempting to give a minority nationalist reinterpretation of history, unsupported by the academic literature, was blocked. His/her previous apparently unblemished history was irrelevant. User:Ariobarza/69.236.90.200 continues to question recognized sources in a way familiar from users like User:M.V.E.i.. It is hard to see how any expert could continue to edit this article when the published work of established classical historians is dismissed by wikipedians, with only their personal views as justification. Ariobarza refers to "suggesting games of academics". It is not up to wikipedia editors to assess academics in this way: that is pure WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of sysop tools

I think Khoikhoi is disingenuous. As you see below, they appear to have been using their sysop tools in furtherance of the pro-Iranian nationalist point of view in multiple edit wars.

Unruled Paper (film) - [51] CreazySuit
Hemshin peoples - [52] Namsos (pro-Armenian) vs. Omer182 (pro-Turkish)
Racism in the Middle East - [53] Larno Man and CreazySuit (pro-Iranian) vs. MiS-Saath (Iran-critical)
Khūzestān Province - [54] Larno Man and BehnamFaris vs. MiS Saath
Arabistan - [55] ditto
Erzurum - [56] (pro-Armenian edits by Darwinek, vs. pro-Turkish anon)
Mazandarani language - [57] 68.5.250.146, internal issue between Iranians
Van Resistance - [58] pro-Armenian version
Massoud Rajavi - [59] CreazySuit
Amir Taheri - [60] CreazySuit
Kish Island - [61] version previously preferred by User:Axamir
Persian Gulf - [62] Sia34, pro-Iranian version
Timurid dynasty - [63] 07fan (possibly another CreazySuit id)
Hotaki dynasty - [64] 07fan (same context as above)
Barlas - [65] 07fan (same context as above)
Bactria - [66] Beh-nam (Tajik/Iranian vs. Pashtoon POV issue)
Demography of Afghanistan - [67] Anoshirawan (same context as above)

I recommend further investigation of Khoikhoi's use of sysop tools. I request that all parties stop battling, and look at their own behavior first, before criticizing others. My block message stated quite clearly that "indefinite" in this case was not meant to be "infinite". Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise being mindful of re-opening old wounds and taking fresh digs at old enemies: doing so is the number one path to drama. Anthøny ✉ 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any part of my comment that could be viewed as provocation. I hope that other editors will check their own posts to make sure they are not sharpening garden tools. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is it better for "old enemies" to pretend like they are capable of neutrally criticizing each other?PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, your criticism of me above? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay I'm not indicting you of anything, and if I'm not mistaken no one else is either. If you want to make this discussion about you instead of ChrisO, Jehochman etc. I'll gladly disclose any past problems I've had with you before saying a word.PelleSmith (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other point bears mentioning, especially since some here are not administrators. When blocking a user, there is a drop down menu that presents options. "Indefinite" appears at the short end of the spectrum, and "Infinite" appears at the long end. These two should not be confused. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, it might be better to address Khoikhoi's use of protection through a request for comment. This thread is already very long and getting pulled in different directions by irrelevant personal issues. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to lengthen this thread. There is a conversation at User talk:Jehochman#Dear Jehochman where I have raised this issue. At this stage, an RfC might be premature. Khoikhoi has been a valued contributor and administrator, and may simply be unaware of the perception that their interventions have been biased. I am hopeful that informal discussion will resolve the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to the rest of this wandering thread, that last list of diffs should be examined and disregarded. Jehochman, what were you trying to show? The first diff, khoikhoi protected the article against someone who was threatening to sue WMF, and was blanking the content. The second diff he protects an article that is the subject of raging nationalist edit-warring, (including proxy-warriors, drawn to the article just to mess with the Armenian or Azeri PoVers), and which he has not edited since 2006, and then non-controversially. The third diff he protects an article during a brief revert war. The fourth diff he protected during an edit war; the page was unprotected 11 days later, and none of the three warriors has returned (I think 2 are blocked and the third is observing a self-imposed restriction). The fifth ended an edit war on (trying to change a dab into a stub??). The sixth he semi-protects an article (which I once edited) to end an edit war with an IP; that was in June, and he lifts the semi-p a few days ago. I'm not going on. Certainly he's made mistakes along the way, but this is an admin who generally stays uninvolved and handles ugly nationalist warring from (I think) the Balkans through Anatolia and into Central Asia. With no dog in the race, with no deep agenda, he goes where uninvolved admins usually do not, and he does good. He seems to be far more likely to give editors room to cool down than to set tripwires, and likely to protect a page rather than to block an editor when that's feasible. What's to discuss? Jd2718 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you observe, the protections may be justifiable when considered individually. My concern is the apparent selective enforcement of policy. The version being protected always seems to favor one side. The large number of incidents defies the laws of probability. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's to discuss is his writing at Talk:Battle of Opis "The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop." -- the key issue was whether editors can decide that a particular translation is correct on the grounds that it (1) the latest, (2) written by the teacher of the disputed translation, etc. That is not a content dispute, and by starting off his entry into the discussion with both an attack on other editors and a misrepresentation of what has been going on I see no desire on his part to give editors room to cool down. (He also earlier removed all sourced text writing that it was " a version based on a false translation" - not our role. So far, he has been acting very much like CreazySuit on this article. Likewise on Kaveh Farrokh where he reinstated Amazon 'blurbs', editorial reviews, despite the fact that over on the RSN, [68], this has been discussed with a consensus that Amazon could be a useful guide to verifiable reviews, but that we'd need to find the original source. I wasn't going to raise that here (I have on Jehochman's talk page), but I want to make it clear that he is now deeply involved and attacking other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other issue of concern that needs to be raised about Khoikhoi, which I discovered a short time ago. After he disputed some of my additions to Cyrus cylinder, a related article, he posted a message to a number of user talk pages concerning an alternate version that he was working on and invited them to contribute to it (see [69] for an example). He posted this to the user pages of Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) [70], CreazySuit (talk · contribs) [71], Raayen (talk · contribs) [72]], Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) [73] and Larno Man (talk · contribs) [74] - all editors who had expressed disagreement with my additions. He did not inform or invite me, you, Dbachmann, 3rdAlcove or any of the other editors who were on "the other side". I presume the intention was to create an agreed version among editors with a common POV and then dump it into the existing article. This seems like a textbook case of improper canvassing and coordinated POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be that these editors were creating an alternate version which they could use to refute the version advocated for by you, Dbachmann and 3rdAlcove. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like to take a stab at summarizing the situation and consensus here:

There was an ugly situation at the related articles Battle of Opis and Cyrus cylinder, which involved multiple admins using tools in policy-violating ways. We can debate the details, but the consensus of uninvolved voices here seems to be that:

Moreschi (talk · contribs) reversed a page protection, without contacting the protecting admin
Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) edited through a page protection in a non-neutral way
Kafziel (talk · contribs) edited in a non-neutral way, and then protected Kafziel's preferred version
ChrisO (talk · contribs) used admin tools to delete an opponent's comment (ChrisO may have also been dragging off-wiki disputes, onto the wiki)
Jehochman (talk · contribs) imposed an indefinite block on an editor, citing ANI consensus, but there was no such consensus

At this time, all seriously problematic actions appear to have been reversed, and no further "fixing" actions are required.

If others agree with my assessment of the consensus, my recommendation (this is my personal opinion at this point) is that in order to proceed, we ensure that a note is placed on the talkpages of all of the admins involved, linking to this ANI thread, and making it clear that the community said, "You shouldn't have done that, don't do it again." If any of these admins do proceed with misuse of admin tools, then we can decide if further action is required, but for now, we can say, "Admins admonished, issue closed, let's move on."

How does that sound? --El on ka 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree You have an apparent axe to grind with ChrisO, Moreschi, and me. Please back away and let some uninvolved parties decide what, if anything more, needs to be done. We have more than 1000 administrators. There is no need for you to referee this particular thread, though of course, I welcome your feedback, which you have already provided several times. Jehochman ^Talk 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Jehochman, as is quite apparent it is you who has an axe to grind with Elonka, and ChrisO does as well, ever since she acted as an admin to put an end to his edit-warring on yet another page afflicted by ethnic edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with JD2718. I think Khoikhoi has used page protection in an effective manner to get editors to engage in discussion, rather than continue edit warring. There may be some hiccups along the way, but his overall track record has been superb, given his history of editing high-conflict articles. Jehochman, I'm curious as to when you suddenly picked up all this knowledge of Iranian nationalist editing? I don't recall ever seeing you editing pages in that area. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ahem. Couldn't this be considered a sign that he's not involved and has no conflict of interest? Elonka, you drew conclusions about five administrators. Each case is separate; I'm concerned with your conclusion about Jehochman, who made a single action, which you did not report accurately. He did not claim a consensus at AN/I, he merely referred to itthe report as containing the evidence. It was easily undone, indeed, he reverted it himself, and if it was incorrect, it was certainly made in the full light of ongoing discussion, and such actions are relatively harmless even if incorrect in some way. It's administrative intervention that takes place unnoticed that is particularly problematic. In any case, Jehochman's block and unblock, in themselves, seem to have possibly contributed to resolution of the situation. Time will tell. --Abd (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the summary which over-dramatizes the event. Two skilled administrators disagreed about a content issue, were editing alongside other aggressive editors, and became aggressive themselves. At one point khoikhoi was sloppy with the tools, and though he hasn't said anything here yet, given his history I assume he mistakenly edited through protection. I don't know why Kafziel's or Moreschi's actions merit attention. Normal DR takes care of this. Jd2718 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because per Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of tools: "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." --El on ka 19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was perfectly neutral; that hasn't been questioned one single time. In fact, nobody was particularly happy with the version I chose - always a good sign of neutrality. I was neither involved with the article, nor with the ANI discussion, nor with any of the other editors or admins prior to my page protection. As has already been explained umpteen times, the protection policy allows admins to revert to a pre-edit war version before protecting. If you have a problem with that, take it up at the policy page. I certainly don't need to justify myself to you, of all people, and I shouldn't have to keep coming back here to see what new jabs you've come up with. If you want to make something more of what I did, just let me know where to find the RFAR. If not, then leave me the hell out of it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead quadruped

Everyone participating in this thread has received valuable feedback, and they should take it into account going forward. Further, circular discussions will not be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage please

This is closing in on 120KB. Time to subpage please. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On it--Tznkai (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's block of ChrisO

Why did she not warn him before blocking him - isn't this normal practice? Elonka's actions seem to be have been highly questionable here. Perhaps she thought nobody would notice. Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? ChrisO is a very experienced admin, who has warned other editors many times for potential 3RR violations. Do you imagine he suddenly forgot the policy? ChrisO violated 3RR, Elonka blocked for 3 hours. The only "highly questionable" thing I can see here is the short duration; most other editors would have received at least 24 hours. Were you proposing the block be lengthened? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple editors involved. ChrisO has already been warned about edit warring in the past, and went over 3RR, which would normally be a 24-hour block, but I opted to use a brief 3-hour block instead. The other key editor involved, Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), had not received a 3RR warning yet, so I opted to give him a warning instead of a block.[75] The other editors warring were only at 1 or 2 reverts for the day, but if they would have continued, I (or any other admin) could have warned or blocked them as well. --El on ka 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a courtesy to warn a wikipedian, particularly an administrator, before blocking them. It was not clear to me that the edits cited were simple reverts. Perhaps Elonka has more familiarity with this particular period in history and the content issues to make such assessments. Is that in fact the case? Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO has agreed to avoid the article for a bit, so I went ahead and unblocked. --El on ka 01:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Elonka suggests, ChrisO said that he was going to sleep and that he had more research to do before adding extra content. As a courtesy to ChrisO, I include his reply as requested:

:(I'd be grateful if someone could copy this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of Opis‎, where it's already being discussed. I don't want people wasting even more time on this.) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Chris, if you want, I'll just undo the block, if you're willing to stay off editing the Opis article for a couple hours? --El on ka 01:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I can guarantee at least six hours away from the article, as I'm off to bed now. So yes, feel free to unblock. I doubt I'm going to be doing anything more with the article for a while anyway, since the remaining parts of it need some research (and books) I haven't yet completed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Righto, the block's undone (though there may be a lingering autoblock, so let me know if there's a problem). Welcome back! :) --El on ka 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Elonka, never block an administrator again without warning. It sends out all the wrong signals. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]