| Revision as of 01:07, 12 June 2008 view sourceChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →Warning those who disagree with your POV Misplaced Pages policy on the Al-Durrah article: - see...← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:27, 12 June 2008 view source ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits Archiving the lot - not worth continuing these conversationsNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == 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. --] (]) 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! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == RE: ] == | |||
| The message you posted on the ] has been replied to. <span style="border:1px dashed #808080;padding:2px;"><small> ] | ] </small></span> 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Chris, just a reminder that the provisions of the above decision apply as much to you as anyone else. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Noted, thanks. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's monitor corps is beginning to outweigh the usefulness of the end product. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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, ]]] 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. -- ] (]) 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! --]]] 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... -- ] (]) 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? :) --]]] 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I ''do'' trust you, but experience has taught me to be very wary of editors who regard Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's integrity in pursuit of that goal. -- ] (]) 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. :) --]]] 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 ] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 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, ] ] 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, ] ] 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 ], your ''first'' stop should be that user's talkpage, to engage in dialogue. Have you done that? --]]] 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? -- ] (]) 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. --]]] 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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, ]]] 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: He is referring is in the first place to ]. He disagreed vehemently with the closure and attacked me in the subsequent ], which upheld my decision. He has a habit of attacking administrators with whom he doesn't agree as being "corrupt" (cf ]: "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 ], where he was one of a number of editors implicated (by several administrators, not just myself) as a player in a campaign of ] 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. -- ] (]) 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. I understand that you're an administrator and a highly-experienced Misplaced Pages 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 , 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? --]]] 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note that SlimVirgin overwrote and then reverted ''my'' changes, which I'd spent some time writing, and replaced them with a completely new and undiscussed version. Rather than revert back to my own version I thought it fairer all round to go back to Beit Or's version, which pre-dated both of ours, so that the differences could be worked out on the talk page. SV seems to have accepted that and I think we're making some progress. -- ] (]) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let me be clear, that you have reverted twice. I'm watching Slimvirgin's edits too, and I will deal with her as well. But please understand what I'm saying to you here: If you revert again, I don't care that you are an administrator, I ''will'' place you under ArbCom restrictions. Please moderate your behavior so that restrictions will not be necessary.--]]] 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning those who disagree with <s>your POV</s> Misplaced Pages policy on the Al-Durrah article == | |||
| Yes, Chris, I saw your protestations, but like your claims to be an "uninvolved" admin vis-a-vis Israeli-Palestinian issues, they simply did not jibe with the facts. CanadianMonkey in particular is neither a new editor nor a SPA, having edited over 300 different pages in the past 5½ months, and had in any event already been notified of the I-P decision. In addition, your insistence that others Assume Good Faith of your actions can only be seen as ironic in light of your attempts to ], label them as "SPAs", and your continued misrepresentation of your opponents' views - in particular trying to frame straightforward content disputes as policy issues. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So promoting original research and violating NPOV are ''not'' policy issues? That's an interesting perspective. As for biting new editors, if you care to read the hundreds of kilobytes of text on that talk page you'll see that I spent a lot of time trying to patiently and politely educate them on policy requirements while being consistently ignored. (See the first post on my user talk page.) Newbies editing in good faith and willing to listen are one thing, tendentious SPAs obsessively trying to push a particular POV are quite another - as, for that matter, are existing users behaving the same way. Now I look forward to you posting the same complaints on the talk pages of Moreschi, Relata refero and the various other editors who've also criticised those users' conduct. -- ] (]) 00:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:27, 12 June 2008
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 / /Archive 21
Please add new comments below.