User talk:6SJ7/Archive 3

thank you for the message
My opinion of ChrisO is quite conflicted, and I am not prepared to judge just yet (i've only seen his name 3 or 4 times). However, I really appreciate your message. If you voice your concern regarding the article here, I'd be very glad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_%288th_nomination%29Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hi 6SJ7. :) I'm an uninvolved admin currently tasked with examining a couple conflicts on Wikipedia, one of which involves ChrisO. I have seen that you have some concerns about his actions. I am not saying whether your opinion of him is or is not accurate, nor am I asking you to stop bringing up legitimate concerns about his behavior.  However, could I please ask you to narrow the focus of where you are bringing them up, and perhaps try to use different language when you do it?  For example, I've seen you bring up ChrisO's behavior at an AfD, and another unrelated user's talkpage.  There is a fine line between "alerting about a problem" and "badmouthing another user", so I would like if you could use good judgment in where you talk about him.  For example, in certain venues, you can (and should!) say that you disagree with his actions, or bring up cases where you feel that he may have misused admin tools. But it is probably not wise to accuse him, at a non-admin's talkpage, of being corrupt. You should also be cautious about where you use language which could be potentially construed as a personal attack. If you do have other issues with what he is doing, I encourage you to bring them to my talkpage, so that I can get a well-rounded picture of the situation. I give you my word that I'm going to do my best to look at the behavior of all users fairly, regardless of whether or not they are administrators. You can and should also express concerns directly (in a civil manner) at ChrisO's talkpage, preferably with diffs. Does this make sense? Thanks in advance for understanding, and if you have any questions, please let me know, --Elonka 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 6SJ7, I've not had any dealings with you for some time, so your personal attacks here and here were unprovoked, unnecessary and gratuitous. Will you retract them? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP notification
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, please do not leave nonsense like this on my talk page. You are just trying to keep information you don't like out of the article, and you are using the guise of enforcing a policy to do it.  See further comments at Talk:Charles Enderlin.  6SJ7 (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, you have a point, but so does ChrisO (though I think he's being a bit heavyhanded in how he's expressing it, especially in terms of his involved status and WP:DTTR). Anyway, in the case of the particular quote, it is probably best to keep it out of the article unless you can provide some really solid reliable sources that use it.  The three that were used, are okay to source some information, but for a potential BLP issue, they are not the best ones to use.  Can you find something in a more reputable source that uses the quote? --Elonka 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop
There is no need to write little "notes" labeling each person who responded to the friendly note Chris left at their talk. He did not violate WP:CANVASS in leaving them, and your "notes" seem to be a way to attempt to besmirch those who arrived because of his neutrally-worded notification. Please quit writing them, as they're totally unnecessary. S. Dean Jameson 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're not in violation. They're worded completely neutrally, and have brought !keeps as well as !deletes to the discussion. That seems to remove any possible appearance of impropriety, as far as I can tell. S. Dean Jameson 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of
Let's not dumb this one down -- this lists real allegations of a real crime; as such allegations is the best English word available. I can hardly stomach yet another wishy-washy "X and Y" type article title, and to label accusations of a crime as merely an analogy to another crime misses the point. A murder accusation isn't an analogy to what Cain did to Abel, is it? -- Kendrick7talk 22:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I don't know where that admin came from. You're on record opposing a very similar name change only last September. If something has changed since then I didn't get the memo. But I agree that we should just wait out the latest AfD. -- Kendrick7talk 03:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

al-Durrah
Your recent comments at the talkpage, especially this one, were not helpful. In the future, especially at that article, please try to be more constructive? Thanks, Elonka 03:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
Hello, User:6SJ7. You recently deleted a large section of an edit I had made to Law of Palestine claiming that it was a "POV essay." This has been bothering me because I make it a point to maintain a neutral POV and it seems like you've failed to assume good faith on my part. I do not edit contentious articles normally and it is quite possible that my addition contained errors, however it might have been more accurate to have called it original research or simply unverifiable. The point of the portion of my edit that you removed was to explain that acts of violence are often interpreted differently from different POVs. Where the application of laws to acts produce differing results depending on jurisdiction (under Israeli law or Palestinian law), the resulting lex causae may weigh minimal penalties under one scheme of justice and grave penalties under another. Since I had attempted to describe both viewpoints and had properly labelled the status of the palestinian state as "ambiguous," I am confused as to which POV you believed me to hold. How can a statement violate WP:NPOV if it includes both relevant POVs? Or have I misstated either or missed any?

Regardless, a portion of the edit has now been restored by another editor and I thought it would be fairest to you to give you an opportunity to explain your POV concerns (if you still have any) in talk so that the creation of this article can proceed as neutrally as possible. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help deescalate the tension
Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following: I hope you find this reminder helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remain polite per WP:Civility.
 * Solicit feedback and ask questions.
 * Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
 * Assume good faith of other editors.
 * I don't see anything all that out of line here. I also wonder why you aren't spreading the word to other commenters on the page, people who've said far worse. But I'm a fan of civility, so I certainly appreciate your efforts on that level. IronDuke  01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You
Are you named for a vacuum tube by any chance, or is it just a random combination of characters? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved
Your move of the Law of Palestine is not accurate. The article will cover all of Palestinian history. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What to do with vandals after a final warning
Saw you didn't know what to do, so here's the page where you report them: WP:AIV. Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I have posts my concerns at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my self-control is admirable
LOL, you've made my day. Sweet. HG | Talk 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, heh. Sometimes one must find a subtle way to "send a message."  6SJ7 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict
Hi, 6SJ7. Since you have participated in the infobox editing dispute, your input on the article's talk page would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to talk to you about a comment you made on the discussion page of the 'proposal for a palestinian state' article. I would have typed it there, but i wasn't sure you were gonna read it. You said the reason it's named proposal.. and not state of palestine is not because of recognition but because of sovereignty. I just checked the western sahara page. It's not named proposal for SADR, but Morocco administers the western sahara. So why is it not state of palestine??--karimobo (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

personal attack
I do apologize if you felt I passed the line to a personal attack, and wanted to address that here rather than at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. I tried to caveat as much as I could because that is not my intention. I have nothing against you as a person, not even in particular against your opinions on the wider issue, which are understandable even if they are foreign to me. What I do have is a disagreement with your stance on inclusion of a topic, a stance I always see as unproductive, even in non-controversial topics (ie people who love to have articles deleted). I believe the more information we can put in Wikipedia the better, and the more we speak and source and put out there the more people will use their own minds to realize what is correct. And if we deny people that opportunity, we are all the poorer. I do want to have the ability to address these disagrements with your view on including a topic, without you feeling that it is a personal attack. How can I do that?

You and I do have something in common, I think, which is a certain consistency. But I have also learned - by doing mistakes - that consistency can become stubbornness, and in a collaborative environment such as this, stubbornness can be unproductive. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Political Violence
I am sorry that you felt that the Lead was less NPOV after my efforts than before. I would like to direct your attention to the talk page, where it was decided that terrorism was not NPOV in the lead.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At ArbCom
Hi,6SJ7, You made a vote and a comment that has remained unsigned and apparently unfinished at ArbCom here:. Would you please fix it? Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

read this
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/04/boston-college-the-truth-about-apartheid/index.shtml#more (Earthsides8 (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)).

Failed state additions
Apart from the two I cited, please read WP:RS and WP:SPS. The reliability of thinkprogress.org cannot be established, and its About page is not promising: "Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. Through this blog, CAPAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies." This suggests that it exists to advance the particular point of view of the members of its hosting organisation, and hence is not even intended to be neutral. (From the description, I may well share some of its ideas, but that's neither here nor there.) If you want to help turn the failed state article into an academic piece examining the argument about what is or is not a failed state based on the published literature, we'd welcome your help (you can see the infrequent discussion on the talk page to this effect), but loading it up with stuff about an election in a non-failed state that didn't even attract significant mention in the mainstream press several months ago doesn't appear to meet this criteria. Also read about systemic bias, which has historically been a real problem on Wikipedia. Thanks. Orderinchaos 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

colourinthemeaning
this user comes to every page of a neighborhood of jerusalem and changes the lead sentence. is there anything you can do to contribut from your past history. thank you. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I/P articles
Hi Six, I'd welcome your views on this suggestion, if you have time. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Hi,

I'm sure you didn't mean any harm, but you shouldn't move pages that have long been established without prior discussion on the page's talk page first, especially not with articles that are highly contentious anyway. 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very good reason the page is not called "political entities" as that would open it up for inclusion of all kinds of minor entities such as districts provinces. If you feel the page needs a better name, dicuss this on the page's talk page first. Passportguy (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2
Hello, 6SJ7. I would like to warn you that particular comments such as these do not do much more than rub salt in the wound, and I ask you to cease making such non-productive comments. Because emotions are running high in this case, I think it would be a good idea to stay clear of until the case has come to an end. Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately, emotions do seem to be running high on that page, though I see nothing improper at all about 6's comment, and warning him and not, say, those who have been heaping pretty extraordinary insults on him doesn't make much sense to me. IronDuke  20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just going to ask on your talk page, Tiptoety, have you also warned ChrisO, for this, saying I told "lies", referring to my "ongoing nationalist disruption" and saying I "should have been banned a very long time ago"? And what about the comment on his own talk page, calling me a "fanatic"?  Does he get warned for that?  On a larger subject, not directly related to me, but relevant to some of my comments on that talk page:  Is it really a good idea for him to write all these posts about how wonderful he is and how bad the ArbCom's decision is, which only invites a response from people, like me, who have a different viewpoint?   6SJ7 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference here is, you appeared out of nowhere as soon as it looked likely that ChrisO was going to be desysopped. You are obviously gloating over his misfortune, and if you continue, I will block you myself. J.delanoy gabs adds  21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yet another admin ready, willing and able to abuse his power. But I won't give you the opportunity, I'll just make my comments here on my talk page.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first comment by you was like rubbing salt in a wound. Stepping down is not easy for an admin and there's no reason to rub his nose in it. As for the "lies" comment, arbcom did say something like "there's no credible evidence". If you and ChrisO can't stay away from each other, at least comment on issues, not individuals. Your 21:19 post doesn't help your case either.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If my last comment didn't make it clear, I have already disengaged with him. Does that mean I can't make comments here on my own talk page?  As for my response to J.delanoy, that was my opinion.  I see that ChrisO recently deleted a comment I made on his talk page, and in his edit history says I must "stay off" his talk page.  Do I get to do that, too?  And where is his warning to "stay away" from me?  But I will "stay away", at least until the case is over, as Tiptoety requested.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you rattle your sabre here, it'll still attract attention. My suggestion is you avoid each other all together.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've rattled anything. But I notice that I got a warning (or three), while all He-who-I-will-not-name got is a "Let us know if you have any more trouble with 6SJ7".  It doesn't seem quite equitable.  And by the way, per Talk and some of the points in there, I would politely and respectfully request that you remove my user name from the heading you placed on the talk page of He-who-I-will-not-name.  6SJ7 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)