User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20

Please add new comments below.

---

User:98.203.11.142 worming his way around a block

You blocked this user yesterday after I reported him on WP:ANI, but now he's wormed his way out of the block! As User:76.119.175.36 (both IPs trace to Mount Laurel, NJ), he's continued his vandalism![1]--Yolgnu (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now he's User:98.203.107.95!--Yolgnu (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he's jumping from IP to IP, I've semi-protected the articles he's hitting. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol

Check before reverting vandalism to another vandalism. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Please believe me when I tell you how bummed I am that it's come to this, but I guess there's no other way. The case I filed against you is here: [2]. IronDuke 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pure paranoid silliness. It really doesn't reflect well on you. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I've given it some thought and, all things considered, I'd prefer not to go through an ugly arbcom case if there's a way around it. If you were willing to promise to leave me alone, I'd be willing to withdraw the case (assuming the arbs would let me do that). This wouldn't address everything I've brought up, but I'm much more interested in being left to edit in peace than I am in seeing you sanctioned. Does that sound reasonable to you? IronDuke 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

I'm new to Wikipedia and noticed this article was mainly your creation, so I just wanted to alert you to my recent post on the talk page of that article. I'm not sure what is the right course here and thought you might want to have a look. Civilaffairs (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act

Hi Chris. I found an article you might be interested, dated January 1964, in a magazine named Fact: "The Fight Against Mental Health." Since you've mainly authored the Wikipedia article, I thought this might be of interest to you. (The PDF is available by clicking on the page icon on the right, but I will remove it once you have it, as my web hosting space is limited.) -- Raymond Hill (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the link! Will you be leaving the HTML version of the article up on your site? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will keep the HTML version. -- Raymond Hill (talk)

Help?

Jason Beghe

Having trouble with an IP and then a new user inserting poorly sourced info into this article, for example [3]. Could you pitch in your advice or help out? Or do you think I should report this to some noticeboard or start an RFC? I think it is pretty obvious that the sourcing is inappropriate and the info should be removed, pending a citation to a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, others weighed in. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)

Could you provide your input here on the talkpage regarding the inclusion of quotes from The Daily Show, The Washington Post, and film critic Richard Roeper in the Critical reception section of the article? Cirt (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment again in that thread? Despite the fact that you, me and Bullzeye (talk · contribs) seem to agree, for some reason the thread is still continuing ... Cirt (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is now an ongoing WP:RfC, would appreciate it if you could check it out - bottom of the article's talkpg. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Uck kla logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Uck kla logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

HY

I think that we need a help of neutral administrator here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Ethnic_Macedonians there it's a vote about national simbol of Ethnic Macedonians,and i dont think that we are going to find compromise. I woud be wery pleased if someome real neutral administrator coud look that debate.

Thanks --Makedonij (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Honest Reporting" alert, criticising WP anti-wikilobby action

Thought you might want to see this, from aggressive media-response alert site Honest Reporting, on the subject of the recent blocking of six users for wikilobbying:

Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia

It's based on some further pieces here.

I've started a thread at WP:AN. -- Jheald (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aegean Macedonians

Hello. Is there any reason why you closed this discussion after I added a {{closing}} tag? That made about half an hour of reading and writing on my part redundant.  Sandstein  18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. If no decision has been taken (delete, merge or keep) but the article continues its life cycle... then it seem to me that a decision has been taken to keep it. This can seem unproductive. Thanks Politis (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like we were closing the discussion at the same time. I posted my close but found myself clashing with your tag. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I find it useful to apply a {{closing}} tag before beginning to edit long AfDs, so as to prevent such conflicts.  Sandstein  20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have done that but I wasn't expecting anyone else to be so quick off the mark! :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I read your closing comment concerning the Aegean Macedonians article. And although it is clearly no consensus, I noticed a problematic phrase you added: "Frankly this AfD has been so distorted by nationalist POV-pushing and votestacking". I am sure that you did not add this comment in order to try to disqualify any future polling result concerning the merging of the article, but I am still preoccupied with the phrase, since votestacking per Wikipedia's rules consitutes inappropriate canvassing, entailing sanctions (I quote: "The greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions.")

Therefore, and since I am sure you are fully aware of the seriousness of your accusations, according to which certain users were involved in this anti-wikipedian and officially condemned behavior, I kindly request you to:

• Expose all the evidence supporting your "votestacking" accusations.
• Name all the users involved in vote stacking.
• To initiate per WP:CANVAS all the appropriate actions against those users involved in votestacking.

Allow me, also, to ask you as the closing administrator, why I do not see the AfD archived in the article's talk page as it should be per Articles for Deletion page.

Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• At least as a minimum sign of politeness, I deserve some kind of answer from your part. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonians = Insult

Please, wipe this brutal, cruel and mad attack on Greeks. This article has to be purged and its pushers banned for life from Wikipedia for being irredentists and lie-spreading propagandists. Thanks.

--87.219.84.207 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonians

This article is a complete FYROM nationalist topic. It is phrase used no where except in Nationalist Fyrom statements and now it has its own article because some Fyromians quickly joined to vote to keep it. Does that seem fair to you, a person who uses a neutrality info box on his user page? I think you have made a mistake with your closing comments and it is very sad. Reaper7 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aegean Macedonians

There were several attempts to vote in this AfD well after it was closed and I reverted them. As a closing admin, maybe you could post an extra note there that people should not vote in the AfD after its closure and should take their further comments to the article's talk page. Incidentally, I agree with the comments that you made in your closing summary. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA in the Signpost

If you get a chance, I wonder if you might take a quick look at User:Ragesoss/CAMERA, an article intended for the Wikipedia Signpost this week (as in, probably tonight or tomorrow), and make sure I didn't make any major mistakes or critical omissions (it's not intended to go into too much detail, though).--ragesoss (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty decent to me. I've corrected one very minor formatting error. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your oversight is needed: Manual of Style

Please direct your attention to your own MOS draft. People of questionable scholarship, motivation and on the whole, partizan editors of record, are dicking with it: [4]. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk

Thank you

Thank you for the correction here: [5] --Southkept (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I'm translating the rest of the Libération article and will update the "France 2 legal action" section at the bottom of the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[6] thanks understood. --Southkept (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Silence

Your silence is astonishing. Disregarding the impoliteness, I find something positive from this issue: for not answering, I conclude that you realized the obvious: Before stating in such an official way any vague or specific accusations, an editor, and most importantly an administrator, whose status entails further responsibilities, should have the appropriate evidence to back them. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, your "put up or shut up" challenge overlooks the obvious: Sometimes effects are apparent without us being able to pinpoint their causes. We obviously don't know who votestacked and exactly which votes were the result of it, neither on the one side nor on the other. That's why people do it secretly. The fact that people came to the page, from both sides, who were not previously engaged with the article, had low levels of activity and dropped by just to "vote" along predictable national lines (e.g. Kapnisma, Giourkas and 3meandEr, on the Greek side) is in itself indication enough. I find the assumption of votestacking a very obvious one to make here. And it's not as if that meant we'd have to sanction people. It's just that it's a reasonable consequence in such a situation that a closing admin should disregard predictable national-opinion-faction votes. The real point is really not whether they actually exchanged e-mails; the real issue is the predictability of opinions determined by national background. By the way, why didn't you scold Avg, who made a far shriller and far more over the top accusation ("an organised POV pushing exercise a la CAMERA"). Shouldn't you be asking him for evidence too? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, are you representing ChrisO? I expected some answers from him, and not from you. Secondly, I insist on what I said above: "Indications" are not enough for the expression of accusations. And ChrisO expressed vague accusations as facts; not assumptions. This is wrong and inappropriate. If both you and him think that some users are involved in votestacking, then provide names and evidence. About Avg's comment, I don't understand what you say: I did not read it (my mistake maybe), but of course I disagree and I condemn it, if he cannot prove what he says. What I said above stands for any user accuses without evidence. Nd it is even worse, FutPer, when you accuse in general and so vaguely, without even the appropriate precision! Let's ask then, both you and ChrisO and Avg to prove these accusations. I expect proofs from all of you.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't got round to replying because I had other things to do. As for the votestacking, it's what FP said above, basically. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you just threaten your fellow administrator with a topic ban or is it my idea? This has gone a bit too far, don't think that your pat in the back for the CAMERA issue gives you some sort of higher status. Also since he's reading, I don't want one other person involved in this conversation (not Yannis) to ever mention my name again and I dedicate to his ungrateful existence the following: Φοβού την εκδίκηση των υπό σου ευεργετηθέντων.-   Avg    00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators aren't exempt from Wikipedia's behavioral standards; if anything, they're expected to meet a higher standard. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting very, very tired of Greek and Macedonian editors constantly ragging on each other. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR Report

I filed a report concerning your editing on Muhammad al-Durrah. [7] IronDuke 00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the way you want to play it, fine. You won't enjoy it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. I understand you are threatening me, but can you say what with? IronDuke 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Very, very close scrutiny. You've been a problem user for a long time; I said some time ago that I thought you'd worn out your welcome, and your actions since then have not changed my opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may scrutinize all you like, just don't block me. And you are the only person who has ever called me a "problem user," or even, I think, implied it. You have a block log that shows 3rr violations and edit-warring violations for 3rr (with mention of edit-warring) as an admin. I have no blocks, nor has anyone ever threatened me with a block, except you. IronDuke 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, both of you. IronDuke -- ChrisO has exactly one 3RR violation, and he invoked it upon himself after the original blocker had decided to cut him some slack. Chris -- "very very close scrutiny" is hard to distinguish from stalking, and doing it in retaliation for a 3RR report would likely be construed as inappropriate behavior to a neutral observer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Josh, you are correct. It was only one block; I regret the error. IronDuke 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - apologies, it was late, I was tired and pissed off at what I perceived as another act of petty harassment. I apologise to IronDuke - but I think he has some explaining to do about why he's apparently monitoring my edits, since he wasn't involved in the article in question. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't monitoring your edits. That article has been on my watchlist for a long time -- if there's a way to check me on that, please do. I was curious when I saw your latest edit and, yes, I am thinking about an RfC, since as I understand it, arbcom said that was the next step I had to take -- and you yourself, in your statement, added that "dispute resolution" had not yet taken place.

I offer, again, the option of going to someone we both respect (Jpgordon works for me -- you?), and submitting to binding mediation. I'll abide by whatever the result is. Or, if that's too onerous, can you at least promise not to block me, threaten to block me, or remove my comments? (And tell me what, if anything, you'd like in return, and I'll try very hard to say yes.) Since you don't really know me (nor I you) you have no way of knowing how unpleasant this experience is for me; I'm most eager to end it amicably. IronDuke 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ID, as far as I can tell, you're requesting that ChrisO never use his administrative tools in any future dispute where you're involved. The latest part has been reporting him for 3RR and then saying how unpleasant it is, and asking if anything has changed. If it's so unpleasant, why are you going and reporting him for 3RR? I don't know about ChrisO, but many of your actions here are very hard for me to parse. Mackan79 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think you're helping this process, I can guarantee you you're not. IronDuke 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ID, but the problem is you're telling ChrisO to leave you alone, but then you went and reported him for 3RR on a page you weren't editing. That isn't consistent with what you're asking for. I'm not sure why you've been pursuing this whole issue so long, but it also starts to look like you're picking a fight with him rather than the opposite. I'd like to think it's a reasonable disagreement, in which case I'd like to offer reasonable advice: I have asked people to leave me alone, I have been ignored, and I have found it frustrating, but continuing to insist that he make some agreement with you is not in my view reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think you're helping this process, Mackan79, I can guarantee you're not. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No comment necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-----Outdent) Chris, just wanted to drop you a line and let you know I asked Scarian about his conclusion of the 3rr report, but not because I want to see him block you; I think he may be making mistakes on 3rr reports in general, and would like some clarification to see if my suspicion is correct. Also, if you could respond to the above when you get a sec, it would be much appreciated. IronDuke 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I'll repeat my offer to quit your talk page should you request it, but if you could say what you think is a good way to go forward, in terms of what I outlined above, I think it would be helpful. I can't, after all, make you respond, but I'm not really sure why you'd refuse to. IronDuke 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Despite the fact of being an involved party you stated a warning against me, evoking sysop privileges, and you claimed that I "hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear." Please refrain from such personal attacks. I did NOT, repeat, I did NOT say anything impolite or dishonest, and I did nothing of what you accused me. Let me make clear to you that I do not take kindly to allegations about my character.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Pallywood. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in CAMERA lobbying arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mere membership by an editor in some external group that has been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations. Sanctions previously imposed are confirmed. An amnesty is extended towards any editors who may have been involved in this external group and who have not been sanctioned for their participation in it. This is coupled with an expectation that these editors will not participate in similar efforts in the future. Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism at all times, and to avoid misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to other editors. For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:550px-Greece linguistic minoritiesb copy.jpg

I'm not good at uploading images, but I've reverted to the good version. BalkanFever 09:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Aegeanhawk2 (talk · contribs). needs blocking BalkanFever 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ChrisO. You might want to keep an eye on this new user: Kwahnaegea (talk · contribs). Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications; I've blocked both accounts and that of the sockmaster. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to trouble you again. He seems to have reappeared as User:Dvaaeg. I could be mistaken, but he is clearly an established user who likes the ethnic revert war. I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Dvaaeg_reported_by_User:Aramgar_.28Result:_.29. Would you mind taking a look? Regards, Aramgar (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift attention. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a fan

Wounder if he actually though this would work; [8]

I templated him, but just an FYI if you want to take it further. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that User:206.53.66.72 should have been blocked for making personal attacks(perhaps for an even longer period than 24h), it was inappropriate for you to block him, as you were quite recently invloved in a content dispute with him. Our blocking policy states very clearly that "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". This gives the appearance of using the block to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Please don't do it again. The proper course is to report the problem to other administrators, and I'm sure it would not have been a problem to find an uninvolved administrator who would have blocked. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? This anon user was only, at best, tangentially involved in the content dispute on the al-Durrah article, as they had made only two edits (out of their dozen or so edits ever), and that was over a week ago. They were banned for the racist tripe and continued incivility expressed today, which was in no way in the context of editing the article itself. Nice try. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This anon user made an edit which was immediately reverted by ChrisO, who accused him of POV-pushing. This is not "tangential" involvement - this is a clear cut case of a content dispute between an editor and an admin. Furtheremore, ChrisO twice reverted this user on another article that same day, and edit warred with a 3rd user on that article over those same edits. There is a very clear instruction that "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". You did ChrisO a disservice by suggesting he personally 'take it further', and ChrisO exhibited very poor judgement by following up on your suggestion. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Context is everything. That dispute was a week ago, as Tarc observes - the anon user isn't currently editing the article. And I'm not going to tolerate anyone who accuses other users of being "neonazis". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Context is indeed everything, and the context in this case is that the user in question was editing the Talk page of the article you were edit warring over, and accusing you of censorship, clearly indicating that the content dispute was far from resolved. I'm not asking you to toleraate anyone who accuses other users of being "neonazis", only that you follow Wikipedia policy in doing so - a policy that very clearly say you may not be the one blocking him. You should not resort to an abuse of your admin tools in order to achieve the desired result. Please don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My last input on the matter. This anon troll was making personal attacks on an article talk page; first directed at an admin, then directed at me for my reverting of it. It is a highly peculiar, and wrong, interpretation of the rules to say that any administrator who has ever engaged with a user at any point in history cannot levy sanctions against such a user for violating WP:NPA. What those rules are designed to cover are actionable situations that literally/actually arise from a content dispute, i.e. an admin blocking someone for 3RR when they themselves are directly involved in the reversions. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The issue here are not the troll's actions - those were inappropriate, and he deserved to be blocked. The issue is who can block him - and our policy is quite clear on that - it may not be an admin that has a content dispute with him. ChrisO, you had three times directly reverted this editor in the last week, on 2 different articles, and once more reverted a 3rd party who re-added his contributions - you were quite clearly involved in a content dispute - and under those circumstance you may not block him - you should report him and have another aditor perform the block. Please don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al Durrah

You deserve a medal for your patience with people on that page. It has generally just made me angry, but you have more sensibly spent a lot of time spelling out in some detail what the policy issues at stake are and reasoning with them on that basis. As if there were any other. --Nickhh (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

I don't understand your message. Are you saying I violated wikipedia rules??

I know you have an agenda, and it shows in the al-Durrah page, but I don't get why I'm being warned.

I'm sick of this political nonsense on wikipedia. I'll be seeking advice from an UNINVOLVED administrator. Perhaps they will be less partisan.

thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: WT:MedCab

The message you posted on the mediation cabal talk page has been replied to.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA

Chris, just a reminder that the provisions of the above decision apply as much to you as anyone else. Kelly ^hi! 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid?

I've been editing for more than 6 months. It was only recently that I actually registered a username. Are you saying Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deserves a spot in wikipedia? From what I understand, wikipedia is not a blog, propaganda hub, or political site. It's an online encyclopedia. Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is riddled with political speculation and blatant bias towards Israel. In addition, the article is overly-dependent on biased sources, and fails to deliver the balance ordinarily seen in wikipedia articles. Also, the article has been around for more than a year, and has gone through several deletion nominations, the most recent showing a strong majority to delete...though I guess that didn't work out. I, and many others, feel Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is an excellent candidate for deletion. Now, if you feel you can clean up the article, or have information that refutes my above observations, I'd be more than happy to end my quest. : ) Thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

I assume the personal attacks on me by the opposing editor went completely unanswered? Seriously -- the level of pomposity and arrogance shown by Wikipedia's monitor corps is beginning to outweigh the usefulness of the end product. Dkendr (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide me with links to personal attacks by the opposing editor, I'll certainly review them. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

ChrisO, hi, could I ask you to try really hard to avoid using the words "you" and "your" in the Al-Durrah discussion? I know that it seems a minor thing, but it's a very important part of my technique here, to get people to be more aware of how they are phrasing things. Also, it's especially important that you, as an admin (granted you're acting as a normal editor here), try to adapt your behavior to my request. I've seen other editors trying to adapt, but when you (or SlimVirgin) ignore me, especially on something minor like this, it's something that the others notice. I'd like to make sure that the rules apply to everyone, in a fair manner. So, please, try to see if you can change your communication style a bit, and just discuss things in the third-person? Thanks, Elonka 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Apologies, it's getting a bit frustrating when the same points come up over and over again, and certain parties ignore everything you've said about those points previously. It's been Groundhog Day on that talk page for the last two weeks. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely.  :) What I'm trying to do right now is set a tone of general amnesty for previous events, clear the slate, and get everyone to move forward. Then I set up little traffic cones, and check to see who can "stay within the lines". As long as everyone adapts, things may stabilize fairly quickly. We'll see! --Elonka 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That does of course assume that people are willing to abide by policy and not ignore it when it doesn't produce the results they want (the SPAs in particular haven't given much indication of this). We shall indeed see... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I've had some success with this technique in the past, please be willing to give it a try. The best way that you can help here, is to stay very calm, and very civil. I understand that the talkpage discussions have been frustrating, and it does seem that some people have not been listening to you. I'd like to think that this isn't just because they've been ignoring you, but because the page has been scrolling so fast it's been really hard to follow. Even though you had just archived things a week or so ago, the page was already back up to 350K!

So, what I'd really like is if everyone could be very calm, and support the restrictions I laid out. Then if most people are very calm and civil, it'll make the excitable and uncivil ones really stand out, and they can be dealt with individually. If things get out of hand, we can protect the page again, but for now, I'd like to try unprotecting. So please, trust me?  :) --Elonka 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do trust you, but experience has taught me to be very wary of editors who regard Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their personal opinions and engage in endless tendentious arguments in pursuit of that. Being even-handed is laudable but we can't sacrifice Wikipedia's integrity in pursuit of that goal. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I too am wary, and I've dealt with some really persistent POV pushers and fringe theorists, so I know what you mean.  :) BUT, I also think it's worthwhile to "give" a bit, and maybe let an article get a bit messy for a few days, if it may help release some tension and get things straightened out in the long run. So don't worry, even if there are short-term problems, I've got my eye on the horizon, and I'm confident that the article will end up better at the end of all this.  :) --Elonka 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

..

As I've stated before, Chris, I've been editing for over 6 months. Only recently did I register an account. Check my user page in case you forget next time. XD

I've heard about this things, but I've never heard of page talking about discussing the concept that there is no Apartheid regime in Israel. What if we were to split the Allegations page, and create an entire new article using the opponent side. This would most definitely solve the balance issue.

anyways Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't fully appreciated that - I've stricken the comments on the AfD. Regarding your proposed solution to the article issue, have you tried proposing that on the talk page? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

al-Durrah

I think that Elonka's plan might work, and I feel it's worth trying out. If you disagree, I wouldn't consider it wheel-warring if you re-protect it, but in my opinion most editors are reasonable, and it removes the restriction for uninvolved editors. I won't personally re-protect it, as I'd like to see if this works, but I won't object to re-protection. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were involved so don't reprotect it. :) If you strongly disagree I would take it to RFPP, but I'd ask you again to try out Elonka's plan. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Chris, I understand that you're feeling frustrated here, but I really recommend that you take a step back here and think harder about what it is that you're doing. Opening an ANI thread could be perceived as forum-shopping. It will probably also be pointed out that if you have concerns about what another editor is doing or saying, that per WP:DR, your first stop should be that user's talkpage, to engage in dialogue. Have you done that? --Elonka 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, Elonka, 6SJ7 is attacking me on unrelated pages, without any provocation, for things that happened a year ago. He obviously has a long-term grudge. In what respect do you think this is acceptable conduct? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat: When you have a disagreement with another editor, your first step is to try to talk to that editor. Going to ANI should only be done if other steps have not helped. --Elonka 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask him on his talk page if he will retract his attacks, and when he refuses (as he will), then I'll take it to AN/I. Believe me, I know what this guy is like. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"I know what this guy is like"? And you are the one complaining about personal attacks? Give me a break. And if you seek a review of my behavior, yours will be reviewed as well, in the appropriate venue. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour in the past hasn't exactly given me much confidence in your willingness to act in good faith. Now please see your talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a bit fuzzy on what the dispute is about? Chris, I saw you mention an ArbCom case... Could someone provide a link to it? 6SJ7, is that the core issue here, or is there something else going on? Thanks, Elonka 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He is referring is in the first place to an AfD that I closed last year. He disagreed vehemently with the closure and attacked me in the subsequent deletion review, which upheld my decision. He has a habit of attacking administrators with whom he doesn't agree as being "corrupt" (cf Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid: "This is one of the most ridiculous and corrupted procedures I have ever seen. One admin closes an AfD according to his own whim, ignoring the complete lack of consensus, and a whole bunch of his little admin friends rushes here to endorse it. I think its time for term limits, or something"). I later gave evidence against him in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid, where he was one of a number of editors implicated (by several administrators, not just myself) as a player in a campaign of WP:POINT disruption. He wasn't sanctioned, but evidently he's kept a grudge going. I should add that I've had no contact with him since February this year, so the personal attacks he's just posted have come completely out of the blue. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I understand that things are moving fast at the al-Durrah page. However, when I said "no reverts", I meant it. This was clearly a revert.[9] I understand that you're an administrator and a highly-experienced Wikipedia editor, but it is very important that I be fair in how I deal with the dispute on the page. I don't want to give administrators more leeway than "regular" editors. So, even though you are an administrator, please understand that I still have the authority to place you under ArbCom restrictions, or topic ban you from the page, and/or block your access entirely. I don't want to do those things, because I know it would be a political nightmare. So please, work with me here? No more reverts, okay? --Elonka 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)