Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ChrisO and Elonka

ChrisO's subpage: User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems

ChrisO (talk · contribs), an administrator who is heavily involved in some content disputes at Middle East-related articles, is maintaining a subpage in his userspace which seems to be violating the Wikipedia attack page policy, User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I attempted to remove the infringing sections,[1][2] but he has simply kept putting them back, and has now used his admin tools to protect the page to prevent further "vandalism".[3][4] He has now passed 3RR,[5][6][7][8] is maintaining a policy-violating page in his userspace, is misusing his admin tools,[9][10] and is accusing an admin trying to enforce policy, of performing vandalism. He also just threatened to block me.[11] So if he's misusing his admin tools in this way, more admin eyes are definitely needed. --Elonka 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The block threat is extremely ill-advised. I'd like to see an explanation for the page, what he intends to use it for and how long he plans to keep it. The sort of thing that he should have explained on the page, probably. It doesn't need to be deleted or modified right now if it has an allowed purpose (prep for RfC, arb case, etc.). But its important to know. Avruch ^T 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that User:Ariobarza is featured in most the entries in that table, and that Ariobarza was blocked for OR pushing, and got a warning immediately after his recent unblock, it's not unreasonable for ChrisO to keep track of articles that need fixing due to Ariobarza's actions. You could ask Chris to remove the editor's name so it won't look like a wall of shame, but keeping that list of problematic articles seems entirely reasonable. VG ☎ 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for the block threat - that was an error on my part, clearly. Put it down to momentary annoyance - ira brevis furor est.

The page is the result of a survey of the contributions, principally, of Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Secthayrabe (talk · contribs). It was prompted by another editor's comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa, one of a series of AfDs on articles created by these two editors, several of which have been deleted as unsourced OR (I have nominated a couple for deletion myself). There are problems with a number of other related articles. The page exists as a set of notes on issues with some of the articles that I reviewed. It is absolutely not intended as an attack page, and I strongly reject any claim that it's meant for that purpose. I suggest that people have a look at the comments on User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I intend to go through the articles in more detail at the weekend to see whether they can be salvaged or need to be sent to AfD, but in the meantime it helps to focus discussion among involved editors. A couple of the articles listed have been sent to AfD by other editors whom I had invited to review these notes, and there are discussions ongoing about what to do with a couple of articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about when you protected the page twice, even as you were in a content dispute over it; was that just "an error on [your] part" too? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(added) The problems with Ariobarza's editing were the subject of earlier discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User:Ariobarza. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's edits to that page appear to have been fairly ill-advised as well. Elonka, in your post here, you refer to rules over and over, yet I see nowhere you've indicated what the problem is. The page, at a casual glance, appears like an attempt to document actual problems that have occurred or are occurring. This doesn't make it an attack page. Why not just leave this alone? Friday (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of articles is not the problem. The issue involves personal attacks at other editors, such as referring to them as Iranian nationalists. Those were the sections I was trying to remove,[12] and still feel should be removed, per WP:ATP and WP:NPA. --Elonka 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no personal attack there at all. 1) The page does not actually call those users "Iranian nationalists" - it mentions that "Iranian nationalism" might be an issue, and then several sentences later mentions several users whose edits might be a problem. 2) How on earth is "Iranian nationalist" a personal attack? Karanacs (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't call editors Iranian nationalists. The page says "Iranian nationalism ... appears to be a common factor". That's not just my personal assessment of the situation. See [13] for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar, as I noted on your talk page, you didn't remove or comment on that. And does 3RR really apply to user's subpages? And although it would be nice if we didn't have to, if we just ignore nationalism on Wikipedia that's going to hurt us in both the short and the long run. dougweller (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, 3RR doesn't apply to subpages in userspace. See the last bullet point in WP:3RR#Exceptions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Surely Elonka must be aware that other administrators are in agreement about these editors. User:JzG independently came to the same conclusion about the template for Kurdish literature created by one of these editors [14], etc. In view of this, it is quite hard to see why Elonka has adopted her present stance in this area, which seems to be outside her expertise. Might it be something personal? Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone is doubting that Iranian nationalism is an issue here, I suggest you look at the user page of User:Babakexorramdin, one of the editors involved in these articles: "In the West I realised how large is the agression towards Iranian history and identity." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To comment here, I was indirectly called an Iranian Nationalist by ChrisO or someone close to him. Yet I forgave him. I think the problem here as I have theorized that some users think Iranian history is fully covered, but neglected. I am niether for or against Iranian Nationalists, they have a right to celebrate their culture, but they are not entirely right, and neither is ChrisO in labeling people. I promised myself to edit Persian related articles from the way up, but because of disputes involving this admin, it has not helped me progress on other articles I want to edit, namely alternative history, animal related articles, and Roman-Greek military history. I do not want to see ChrisO be blocked for this, eventhough it was because of him as he made my ANI page, that I was blocked for two weeks. Because I agree with him that there is a lack of neutrality here, but he also needs to stop going back on his word.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• When I first saw this page yesterday, I was somewhat concerned by the "Editors of concern" section at the bottom. With this having been removed, I see nothing improper with ChrisO's page and consider it only a useful and suitable place for managing what appears to be widespread policy violations. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question ... why does the phrase "editors of concern" cause you, erm ... concern? It's not a negative phrase, it generally merely identifies editors who may have input into a situation, not editors that someone would be "concerned" about. -t BMW c- 12:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who thinks this list might be appropriate to add here? These are the real policy violations on purpose. (please click)Please read the message titled, "misconduct issues", it is note worthy, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Not that I can claim complete impartiality either, given the al-Durrah brouhaha this summer, but is any thought being given here to just why Elonka involved herself in this in the first place? That there is a rancorous history between these two administrations is patently obvious. Therefore, while there is no rule (that I am aware of anyways) that says that those with personal histories shouldn't act administratively against one another, one would imagine that an admin finding themselves confronted with such a situation would go to seek outside, uninvolved opinions instead of taking action themselves. Frankly, Elonka's actions seem to have been needlessly provocative. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone raised this issue. This seems to have come about as a result of Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), whose contributions at Battle of Opis have been problematic, complaining to Elonka on her talk page (User talk:Elonka#battle of Opis). Nepaheshgar seems to have coordinated this with Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), one of the parties in the al-Durrah brouhaha who was recently canvassed off-wiki to follow me to unrelated articles on ancient Mesopotamian history (see User talk:Tundrabuggy#Don't be intimidated). I raised the issue of Tundrabuggy's apparent wikistalking earlier, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy. I'm concerned that Elonka seems to be implicitly accepting a role of being the go-to person for any issues on which I'm involved, and I'm also concerned that Tundrabuggy seems to be playing a role in keeping the old al-Durrah feuds alive. I'm deeply frustrated that having gone to work on an unrelated area of Wikipedia - it's ancient history, an area in which I have academic qualifications, not "Middle East-related" as Elonka so misleadingly puts it - I'm seemingly being followed around by people involved in the al-Durrah dispute. I proposed to Elonka months ago that the two of us should mutually disengage. I did so; it's very disappointing that she hasn't reciprocated. I don't want to feud with anyone, least of all fellow administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is provacative is ChrisO spends hours refutting what people say about Persian history, and to make things worse, he does not help research about it. He simply slaps deletion tags on articles, and convinces others that he/ she is right. I do not know why he spends a long time trying to create hostility, hindering the progress of articles, and contradicting what he preaches about neutrality, if you check the link of the message above, its clear I am not the first out of 5-6 that he has had disputes with, and appears he might have violated and broken some rules here and there.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• I'm not uninvolved per se, but my only involvement has been through the AfDs. Without continuing to the parsing of motives that this thread seems to have devolved into, can I ask what admin action is necessary? It appears none, as consensus seems to be that this page isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool used to track what ChrisO believes to be problematic edits and articles. Since it appears that no admin action is necessary or will be taken can we mark this as resolved? AniMate 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue. Also, I'm not seeing any consensus that the page "isn't an attack, but a useful, though contentious, tool..." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is a page in his user space, not the same thing as though it was in article space. And you also seem to have a long history of dispute with ChrisO. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection in User space is for protection against vandalism, which ChrisO claimed it was, but which it clearly was not; please review WP:VANDAL. Also, please avoid Ad hominem arguments in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If the page was only about Ariobarza's recent conduct, it would be fine IMO. But this is an attack page, meant to defame a variety of users (I see that I am apparently grouped together with all the other users who have been involved in a recent content dispute with ChrisO). This is part of his larger effort to paint a legitimate editing dispute as a policy issue. Chris has also canvassed dozens of editors to watchlist the page, essentially turning it into a vehicle for vote-stacking ([15]), stalking, and defaming other users. Many of the people involved in this discussion were canvassed earlier as well ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and a dozen more). Khoikhoi 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks. The page is one day old. We generally allow editors some leeway to assemble material for dispute resolution in their userspaces. This is presumably intended to form the possible nucleus of a request for comment or other means of dispute resolution. If the page hangs around and ChrisO does not pursue some formal means of dispute resolution in the next week or two, then yes, it should be deleted as we don't keep enemies lists lying around in userspace. But again: the page is one day old. Everyone take a deep breath. If there are issues of canvassing or votestacking involving ChrisO, then they should be pursued appropriately, but lumping them on to this already over-personalized and rambling thread isn't the way to go. MastCell ^Talk 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify for the nth time:

• This is not an attack page. It's a personal review of a number of problematic articles, which I'm working through systematically to fix or send to AfD. It was created in response to Nickhh's suggestion for "a systematic look through all related articles" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa).
• This is not an enemies list. Yes, a number of editors are listed (including myself, Cplakidas, Crusio and Dougweller, who I certainly don't regard as enemies) but this is simply to identify who the principal involved editors are. It doesn't imply wrongdoing of any sort.
• No votestacking has occurred. A number of articles by Ariobarza and Secthayrabe have already been sent to AfD and there will probably be more deletion nominations to come. I contacted the editors involved on both sides of the AfDs, posted friendly notices about the issues that I had found and requested their feedback. (See e.g. [24]).
• Deletion is not appropriate at this stage. This is a working page, intended for the use of myself and other editors, to work through these issues systematically, fix the problems that have been identified with these articles, track progress and add or remove articles as needed. That will certainly take longer than a week! Dispute resolution is only part of the picture; the page is being used as a collaborative tool, not as a platform for an RfC or some other form of DR. An RfC or two might end up being necessary but that's not the main purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I agree with you ChrisO, that the page should not be deleted. BUT, it should be updated, because some of the faults you say about certain articles, I have fixed them. If you do not update the page where you tell the viewer that I FIXED some of the issues about certain articles. Then you are being misleading to the viewer of the page. Respond on my page, and I will provide you with a list of FIXES that I made to the articles you have in question. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

It sure feels like an attack page, blacklist, enemies list to me, as an "Editor to Watch." I have edited only one of these pages, that being the Battle of Opis, and I made a full four edits. I would appreciate contributors on this section to look at these four edits and asking themselves what exactly it is that makes my edits problematic? {Added balance & reference[25]put the disputed tag back on since there was not consensus to remove it [26] scratched some vagueries [27][28]. } If you see nothing wrong with the edits themselves, then ask yourselves why my name is/was on that list (that got circulated to how many editors and admins giving the impression that we were all 'problem editors'?) Oops! I see it has been expanded since I last looked at it. Other articles have been included for which I am supposedly a problem. Other presumably non-problematic editors have been added to help the appearance. The line shifts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As has been said before, TB had no prior interest/expertise in this topic and seems to have followed ChrisO there, with the encouragement of an unnamed administrator. Nepaheshgar recently left a message [29] on TB's talk page in which he refers to writers condemned to Iranian nationalism by the "enlightened" unbiased euro-centeric hysterians(I mean historian) who are promoting Nabonidus.

Perhaps Jehochman will at some stage elaborate on the precise terms of Arioborza's unblock (discussed in private emails). Was he not to have had a mentor? At some stage he was advised to develop articles in his user space, to learn how to source them properly and avoid the problems of original research, which is what this is all about. Currently he does not seem to be doing this and is proceeding as before (mistaking deletion discussions for speedy deletes, making this kind of tendentious comment [30], etc). Who is his mentor? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The person who was hopefully going to be his mentor turned him (or her, Tundrabuggy calls Ariobarza her) down. Jehochman unblocked because of good faith and emails.

As for attack pages, again, how about the section misconduct issues on Talk:Battle of Opis and the one 'pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" at the discussion page[31] of ChrisO's user page that some people are so upset about? These actions by User:Nepaheshgar are clearly using discussion pages to make personal attacks directed at a specific editor. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As various editors have noted, Ariobarza remains clueless in providing sources. [32] Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza seems to have worked on that article nine months ago, Mathsci. Let's not use that against them. Ariobarza, please do as we discussed: 1/ avoid conflicts; nothing good comes from arguing with other editors, 2/ create new content in your own userspace, 3/ seek help from friendly, experienced Wikipedians to make sure your work is up to standards, 4/ don't worry if anything gets deleted because I can provide a copy to you. Perhaps Khoikhoi would be willing to help as well. Jehochman ^Talk 07:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan, probably you missed this very recent diff, concerning sourcing for Siege of Doriskos. [33] (Previous edits to the article seem irrelevant.) In line with the agreed conditions you have mentioned, somebody should explain again, possibly in private, wikipedia policy on WP:V, WP:RS, etc. I have no doubt that you have done this at length yourself. Let me point out again what Ariobarza did today for producing a source for the article: he/she made a search on google books for "siege" and "Dorisko" and found a whole bunch of entries. However a search for the single term "siege of Doriskos" on google books or scholar produces nothing at all. This seems to be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(I fully understand what you say Jehochman, but I just want to make one last thing clear)

Mathsci, if there are problems, just explain them with kindness and show that you want to help, rather than get somebody banned. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There was never a question of banning! To keep our discussions calm and friendly, I have replied to you and Ariobarza elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please... Mathsci I advise you not to make this issue about me (nothing good comes from argueing with editors). Everything I said on this page is true and you know it (mainly the deeds of ChrisO, and how multiple users are thinking of making an ANI page for him, because of his conduct). Do you want me to talk about that harrasment matter you had?.. I think not. As for my mentor, I already got one, and I am editing in my drafts and sandboxes, so do not tell me what to do now. I have trouble editing, because I have to waist my time cleaning up the missess you people have created, what users are saying the AFD pages, which are illegimate POV tags. I am constantly working out issues with editors currently, making friends, and solving problems. So your the last person I want to worry about. I provided sources, I think your remaining clueless (you called me clueless), please go back to editing math articles. And do not find excuses to involve yourself here. This page is about ChrisO's recent article, and some of his edits. It is not a page to get me banned (Ariobarza has good faith). Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

With respect, the page concerns the poor/absent sourcing of a circle of related articles in ancient history. Do you accept now that nobody has so far been able to locate any sources for Siege of Doriskos, one of the articles listed on the subpage? Please don't turn this into a personal attack on ChrisO. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza, please don't discuss content disputes on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please go to WP:ADOPT and find somebody to help you learn about proper sources. Other editors, there is always a need for experienced mentors at WP:ADOPT. Please help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to state my opinion: ChrisO's notes are ChrisO's notes, it is good for transparency that he chooses to keep them on-Wiki, and there should be a high bar on calling such notes out as "attack pages". No action needed. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Same. There are real problems on these pages - several of them have been created on the whim of individual editors, and then stuffed full of information that appears to have been more or less made up. WP needs more coordinated analysis of problem areas (which is what Chris' page involves), not less. The good articles will survive that, and should even be improved as a result. I agree that we need to be careful about it being seen as some sort of attack page, but equally where the same editors' names crop up again and again, that helps clarify what the problem is and where other problems might be found. When I last looked, Chris had removed the dedicated list of editors, and only kept fairly bland references to them within the article sections (which of course simply summarises info already available from the article history). If you edit here, what you do will be scrutinised, and rightly so. Each time I see it happening I'm becoming less surprised by the comments of those who seem more bothered by i) supposed form/process, ii) spotting even the merest hint of what might possibly be perceived as a slight personal attack, and iii) their own apparently personal issues with Chris, rather than the accuracy, quality and neutrality of content in Wikipedia. As most people surely know, there's an awful lot of cr#p on here and any effort to deal with that should be applauded. --Nickhh (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you find it funny that the same users (that are with ChrisO) pop up in the deletions pages saying things like Delete-per nom,sign. They never explain why it should be deleted, and when evidence is presented they still deleted (they make excuses like the information is not enough for a single article, it should be deleted, ignoring other articles and coming after Persian related articles, why?). Is this the new revionist strict in denial policy of these users. If this is the case, it should be stopped, or I THEORIZE other users might be compelled, on the opposing side, to make an ANI for some of them (do not worry, I will never make an ANI page for someone, I am not that evil) I have hope in good faith. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The only impropriety I can see is what Avruch noted in confirmation of Elonka's remark re ChrisO's block-threat. That exasperated ira has now been apologized for, and the irate threat removed. The fact remains that two editors who appear to many to push fringe theories, have been supported by Elonka against ChrisO on two separate areas, on formal issues. Since Elonka and Chris0 have conflictual relations, it is not advisable for the former to intervene on secondary pages where ChrisO has issues of contention with one editor who followed him there, on an anonymous administrator's suggestion, and with another who doesn't, by all accounts, understand WP:RS, WP:SYNTH etc. Elonka is a formalist, ChrisO a content-editor. Successive interventions by Elonka here only reflect a structural tension in wiki between the application of etiquette protocols to ensure civil editing, and the application of protocols to ensure that quality sources inform content designed to produce articles that are written to the highest standards of specialist research. This battle cannot be waged endlessly between the two, and therefore neither should meddle in their disputes with third parties. For to do so, lends an air of persecution, vendetta, settling scores, etc., a suspicion that will only increase if this interaction persists, and lead to the usual partisan line-up, the same debates, and the same subtextual animosity. Since ChrisO moved on from the Mohammad al-Durrah article which was the origin of their clash, removing himself from the original site of their differences, and Elonka moved after him, as did Tundrabuggy to these Persian pages, it appears to me that this latter move was intrinsically and forseeably not conducive to the very neutrality and etiquette Elonka herself insists on as a priority. A completely neutral administrator or two, with no history of conflict with ChrisO, should be appealed to by those who disagree with his edits on the Persian pages, or his use of administrative tools there.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

comment This comment is to Doug Welter. Doug States:You don't seem bothered about User:Nepaheshgar's section calling ChrisO a liar. That is not true and please do not twist the statement. This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each otherup even it means twisting statement. I did not call ChrisO a liar. I said: "pure lie and misrepresentation of the problem" which is stating an opinion on his opinion about me (his opinion is in violation of WP:ATP, specially when he started that page, he had targed 6-7 editors[34]. Please note ChrisO even accused me of edit warring, which is a lie. I hardly edited those pages. If anyone was edit warring, it was ChrisO who is an admin and yet broke 3rr on that page. Possibly, I broke 1rr but not even 2rr. Stating an opinion on an opinion is fine in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Personal Attacks are not fine, but that was comment on content. Of course ChrisO has constantly called anyone who disagrees with him as an "Iranian nationalist". For example I have listed some Iranian nationalists here starting from Plato, Herodotus, Xenophon and etc to modern Western scholars:[35]. Trying to change the topic now will not work and change focus. How about this comment by ChrisO with regards to me: [36]. Please note his threats and intidimation. The whole comment violates many rules of Wikipedia. " Carrot first before stick?" shows complete arrogance (due to administrator power) and WP:OWN mentality and I even believe that is how ChrisO feels about who disagree with him and are not fromt he same area. Or how about this: "could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback". This is a threat for permanent banning and it is intidimation. All this, due to a content dispute (and I hardly edit any of these articles before discussing them and I have never reverted in any of these articles or broken 3rr like ChrisO). As per the issue of the Kurdish literature template, I have no doubt it is related. Incidentally if I was an “Iranian nationalists”, I would not create a Kurdish literature template. I have already mentioned templates which include: [37] [38][39] and have existed for some years now. Why were those not put to deletion after two-three years? So what I have done is create a parallel Kurdish Literature template when I saw Urdu, Turkish, Persian and etc. templates that have existed for some years. If there is a Turkish literature template, Urdu literature template,..etc., why not Kurdish literature template. If I was an "Iranian nationalist", I would have just let there be a Persian literature template and then redirected Iranian Literature to Persian literature instead of making that page a dab page. As per ChrisO being knowledegable in the classics, when it comes to ancient Persia, I also have a knowledge of Old Persian language as well as have read many history books and articles. So that does not give an execuse to misue administrator power. ChrisO has abused his administrator power to intimidate other editors and has violated WP:ATPWP:NPAWP:3RR numerous times. When he disagrees with them, he labels them instead of concentrating on content and this leads to an atmosphere of intidimation(of course since he is an admin and he knows the other side knows he is an admin, this makes the threat credible). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when is saying that someone has told a lie not the same as calling them a liar? You write " This shows exactly how some people are working behind the scenes to back each otherup even it means twisting statement." Now what are you accusing me of? What does 'working behind the scenes' mean? You've called Chris a liar, you seem to have accused me of something, and you keep harping on Chris breaking 3RR which he admitted he had done -- it happens, and he was unblocked by the Admin who blocked him. As for things not being put to deletion when they should have been, there must be thousands upon thousands of articles, templates, etc which should be deleted but no one has noticed them or gotten around to doing something about them. As for attack pages, you have tried to turn at least two user pages into attack pages. dougweller (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to change the subject. I commented on content and not the person which is common to Wikipedia rule. ChrisO had made the comment here: [40]. He explicitly states: Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs). Very similar problems as with Ariobarza. Has edit-warred, pervasively pushes OR with regard to Battle of Opis in particular. . Now this is what I have called a pure lie. Now if you are connecting this to labeling ChrisO as liar, then that is your issue, but I have not called him a liar. Rather per wikipedia rules: WP:NPA where it explicitly states: Comment on content, not on the contributor., I have commented on the content on his page and I called that sentence/label a lie[41]. Because unlike ChrisO, I have not edit warred on the topic or broken 3rr. Neither unlike ChrisO, I have intidimated users and threatened to ban them or treat them as inferior animals(carrots or sticks comment) or have canvessed 40 users to my talkpage and then defamed 6-7 users:[42] and then used my administrator power to lock the article which defames individuals. I hope that clears things up. As per the Kurdish Literature template, it was the tone of nominator which was the problem. Note the nominator said: This navbox appears to have been created by a tendentious editor in order to pursue his agenda. The template relies on a nationalistic definition. Most of the entries are not linked. . ChrisO then puts "per nom". The reason for deletion should be given without labeling the editor. And the template had no agenda. The template follows regular patterns in other Wikipedia templates that have existed for many years (Urdu, Turkish, Persian literature templates..) and there was no agenda by a tendentious editor following a nationalistic definition! Now if those other templates that have existed many years are inappropriate, then reason should be given rather than labeling editors as the nominator did. As per bias, I'll leave it to other editors.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You could have said ChrisO's statement was wrong, and that would have been ok. Saying it was a lie is calling him a liar, and to deny that is just ridiculous because it is a direct comment on the contributor. What he locked was his userpage, not an article, I am sure you know the difference. You are conflating all sorts of things in an attempt to do what looks like harassment of ChrisO, eg your continued mention of 3RR when you know it was once, he admitted he'd done it inadvertently, and the blocking Admin (Elonka in fact) unblocked him. I disagree that you haven't edit warred. I don't recall any ban threats (predictions maybe, but that is very different). And I don't see intimidation either, although ChrisO - and you and others -- have some very strong feelings on various issues which he, you and others have expressed. dougweller (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get into semantics. If statement is wrong, then it is a lie. It could be an intentional or non-intentional lie, but it is a lie. One definition of lie in my dictionary is:an inaccurate or false statement. Now, if somethings falls under a label "editors of concern", the word "lie" is appropriate since it is an inaccurate satement! Per Wikipedia rules, you can make comments on content but not label editors. You brought this matter up, but as you noticed, it does not go against any Wikipedia rule since I am commenting on content. As per 3rr and ChrisO, it occured twice, not once. Breaking 3rr twice is edit warring, specially in the same topic. But one revert is not edit warring. So ChrisO has called my editing pattern for that article as "edit warring"(which is a lie: false/inaccurate satement) where-as he broke 3rr twice on the same article. He was blocked once, but then he did it again, I was about to file a report, but I withdrew (out of good faith)[43][44]. So I did not continue it. And it was right after he broke a 3rr before. As per me edit warring on battle of Opis, no I did not edit war. Predicting banning and then putting my name constantly next to a banned user, is intrepreted as a ban threat. Grouping different users and putting my name next to a banned user is an intidimation tactic. Also "Carrot and Stick" is intidimating comment as well as arrogant. I am sure you would not like such comments applied to you. There is no need for me to repeat myself and I think I was clear. If you disagree fine.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that such pages as ChrisO's are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia, definitely not appropriate for an administrator to have (who is supposed to appear neutral as an administrator), reflects POV and possible SOAP problems, and violates many editorial ethical concerns. I think, at the very minimum, such pages should be immediately deleted and the user warned against creating such thing in the future. They are not compatible with consensus, civility, or any of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is about working together, finding unity in which all people can be agreed upon, and not the place for one person who has "truth" to pass blank judgment on all others without actually getting into discussions, focusing on specific events, wording, phrasing, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly gentlemen, this is getting farcical beyond forebearance. I've lost my cool just having to waste an hour checking stuff. I've examined this editor because I note Jehochman now is expressing frustration at what he now perceives to be Chris0's irascible behaviour, and I take Jehochman's judgement seriously. This repeated requirement that etiquette prevail over quality, that minding your p's and q's with whoever is far more important than having specialized editors formally prepared in their subjects, is absurd. I can now see why Chris0 reacted as he did. One look at Nepaheshgar's page, and he'd have known, as I do now, that editing rationally with him is going to be extremely difficult, because that page is a compost heap of badly sourced, poorly translated or wrongly sourced material. Yet wiki requires one to be exquisitely polite, even if one's interlocutor is off the planet (to use an hyperbole, and not applicable to the present case, where we merely have someone who has no knowledge of what constitutes reliable sourcing).

Nepaheshgar's page on classical sources bearing on Cyrus would tell anyone that editing with him is going to be tortuous, because that page is a crazy-quilt of irrelevancies that attest to his lack of grasp of many things, how to source, whom to source, how to distinguish old, dated sources from modern ones, how to discard a dud source from a reliable one, how to check if the source itself quotes the text correctly or merely paraphrases it, how to know who is an authority and who not etc.,etc. It is a nightmare.

He quotes Plato's Laws 693D-698 for the following remark:-

Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community

A glance will tell you this cannot be so, because Laws 693D-698 is not a ref to a passage, but refers to 7 long pages of the original Greek text (Burnet, Platonis Opera, Tome V, pp.102-109)

So I've had to read the whole blasted section again, in Greek just to be sure, just to see what's going on, and am forced to conclude it is a paraphrase, deeply misleading at that, of a small section of Plato (giving an 'Athenian's perspective' not necessarily Plato's) by someone else, not a quote from Plato, namely Sect 694a-b. There however the Persians do not 'liberate themselves'. They lived a live combining a measure of liberty and slavery, etc.etc. It is a paraphrase not a quote, as Nepashegar would have it.

He cites a 'poem' (actually a drama) by Aeschylus, for Greek attitudes to Cyrus, and the text given is

'Her brave hosts A Mede first led. The virtue of his son Fixed firm the empire, for his temperate soul Breathed Prudence. Cyrus next, by fortune graced, Adorned the throne, and blessed his graceful friends With peace: he to his mighty monarchy Joined Lydia, and the Phyrgians; to his power Ionia bent reluctant; but gods with victory his gentle virtues crowned

Where's it come from. One looks at the source. Richard Simpson, Notes and extracts in illustration of A slight sketch of universal history. Oxford University, 1875

Never heard of Simpson. No page number given. Outdated 19th century obscure sourcing again. The flowery verse resists any quick identification of their origin in the actual greek text. It is standard practice to quote recent translations, that are not 'poetic' but accurate, preferably with a modern secondary source, in this case, Edith Hall's, 'Aeschylus:Persians' Aris & Phillips, Warminster,, 1996. For the record, the verses alluded to are lines 765-773. The translation is inaccurate. The original stresses Ionian Greek resistance to Cyrus's use of force Secondly, the Chorus is singing as a Persian chorus to Darius. Aeschylus here is imagining what Persians would say of Cyrus, not what Greeks thought necessarily. Hall has also written an extensive and ground-breaking study, Inventing the Barbarian:Greek Self-Definitions through Tragedy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1989, which has a whole chapter (ch.2 pp.56-100) analysing the way Persia is depicted in classical Greek theatre. These are the kinds of sources to use if one cites a play like The Persians', not some vague unnotable book published 130 years ago.

What on earth is the father of modern European racism, Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, who wrote his foundational tract on 'races' ('Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines')back in the 1850s, doing being cited here, as though the republication date 1971 indicated he was 'the late' Comte de Gobineau? Do we say, 'the late Karl Marx', 'the late Charles Dickens'. Obviously Nepaheshgar does not realize who Gobineau was, nor that his various books on Persia document his theory of races rather than the history of Persia, whose major documents were hardly yet in the purview of scholars, nor the ancient material since unearthed. His Histoire des Perses is defined by his most recent editor Jean Gaulmier, as 'ce livre bizarre' (Gobineau.Oeuvres,, vol.1 ed.Jean Gaulmier, Bibliothéque de la Pléiade, nrf, Paris, 1983 p.lvi)

He quotes Max Von Mallowan. I didn't know that Agatha Christie's husband had a German title. After all his father was just an Austrian migrant to England, and the highest rank he got was a CBE. Still, he's okay, if rather dated.

He quotes Will Durant, a widely read popularizer of good standing some 70 odd years ago. No direct knowledge of the area.

He quotes Arthur Cotterell. Another popularizer, writing general middle brow books on everything from the Celts to China. No direct knowledge of the subject.

Why is everyone frigging about with the rule book? Ask any editor with a background in ancient history, qualified at university level, and if he doesn't confirm one's impression that people who prepare material in this holus-bolus topsyv-turvy antiquarian medley way are not going to be easy to edit with, then I'll be a canadian monkey's uncle.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That page is a work in progress. But you are wrong. a) Cuyler young for example is an Achaemenid scholar. 2) I am about to add Richard Frye. 3) Max Mallowan Achaemenid scholar, wrote specific article on Cyrus the Great in a very prestigious book. How come you did not comment on those? 4) As per Plato, it is straight from an academic book without any deletions or additions and very recent: [45]. So wrong again. Aeschylus here it is:[46]. If you have a more recent translation that is fine. 5) Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau is quoted because he had racist statements against Iranians and typfies typical euro-centric scholars. So he could not be "Iranian nationalist". And the issue was that ChrisO was calling anyone that believes in such sources as an "Iranian nationalist" influenced by the "Shahs" propoganda. 6) Again it is a work in progress, but note I do not label or name any particular editor. And if it is a matter of specialization, I mentioned one person Kuhrt who has no papers in Akkadian studies and is considered a revisionist by some specialists, yet that source was given undo weight. 7) Max Mallowan, 'Cyrus the Great' in: Ilya Gershevitch (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, 1985 Cambridge, pages 392-419. Very specialized source from 1985 used by many academics and the topic is specific to Cyrus the Great where-as many of the articles listed by ChrisO are not specific to Cyrus the Great. For example Simon Sherwin and his book on the old testament is not devoted to Cyrus the Great. Or on battle of Opis, I was talking about very specialized sourced that is focused to the topic from a linguistic expert. 8) Again if you have content dispute, then get involved in the content dispute, try RFC and etc. Labeling people as "Iranian nationalists" and etc. and then defaming them on your userpage and canvessing 40 or so people to look at the defamation does not produce a conducive atmosphere in fixing these articles. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ottava Rima's 16:48 statement above, that the page at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems is troublesome. Ottava also brings up an excellent point, that especially as ChrisO is an administrator, it is important that he set a positive example of behavior in how he treats other editors. The page as it currently stands, reflects negatively on both ChrisO, and on Wikipedia. It might be best if ChrisO were to voluntarily remove anything from the page which makes comments about contributors as opposed to content. If he is unwilling to do this, then the page should be deleted. --Elonka 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, could you please clarify why you think this reflects negatively on ChrisO and on Wikipedia? How, for example, is this list different than the one at Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#List_of_articles_for_review? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that list focuses on content and not the contributor. It's also worth pointing out that that particular contributor was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and was completely banned from the topic area for a year. The problem with ChrisO's subpage is not the list of articles. Having a list of articles that need cleanup is absolutely okay. The problem with ChrisO's subpage, is that it is also being used to snipe at other contributors. If he removes the personal attacks, the page is fine. --Elonka 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problems appear to be with contributors not adhering to Wikipedia policy, and ChrisO is attempting to get a handle on it with this collection of information on a sub-page. Obviously you two have a different approach to conflict resolution. But really, given your past history, wouldn't it be best if you recuse yourself from this matter and let other non-involved admins handle it? Tarc (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, despite the repeated accusations here, there is no past history. All of my actions regarding ChrisO (pro and con) have been as an administrator. But I have no bias one way or the other regarding the article content. See WP:UNINVOLVED. --Elonka 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"No past history"; all my issues with ChrisO have been "as an administrator". Bullshit especial, by any definition. --Nickhh (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, whether they have been done in an administrative matter or not is irrelevant. I can't believe that you're sitting here and blatantly lying about being uninvolved. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly a problem in this topic area; as Nishidani has indicated, part of the problem is that we have some editors who are quite enthusiastic about ancient Persian history, but who do not have a strong grasp of how to handle sources and how to do historical research. Their editing is reducing the quality of the encyclopedia. Since the problem isn't limited to one article, keeping a list of the problematic articles is a pretty good idea; hopefully, the existence of such a list will make it easier for more editors (not just ChrisO) to participate in the cleanup process. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Elonka's ruling is that, in a sophomore class on ancient history full of polite bright enthusiasts, which however has one classicist, you need a third party to monitor the latter's attitude, because he may occasionally express impatience at the constant interruptions caused by kids who haven't yet learnt the languages, know nothing of the subject except what they grub up by googling randomly, as days, weeks and moneths 'which are the rags of time' flow by with nothing done, and no progress made. The guardian monitor must follow him or her from class to class. It reminds me of 1968, in its Red Guards (1966) aspect (this from a Marxist like myself). All those wild students crowding in, accusing their teachers of bad attitudes. It caused Theodor Adorno to have a heart attack, and Maruyama Masao to retire in ill-health, both doyens of their fields. None of the students knew anything, but they were experts in attitude. Chris, if this finangling over p's and q's persists, drop out, mate. Unless this pettifogging etiquette mania desists from its incapacity to thresh the wheat from the chaff, it ain't worth the candle to work here. I'm fucked if I can tolerate it. I'm going on strike. No need to ban me. I'll do it myself. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please mind civility and do not use inappropriate terms. Argue based on content.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And here is where you are precisely wrong, Nepaheshgar. This particular page is dedicated to the discussion of editor behaviour, not article content. Behaviour includes such things as properly quoting sources, providing reference sources on request, and determining consensus. Consensus amongst 6 of 8 editors that the moon is made of green cheese, based on children's storybooks, does not trump the other 2 editors who use peer-reviewed sources published by university presses. Content is discussed on article talk pages, in mediation, on WP:RSN, not here. We are focusing on behaviour here. Risker (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have read everything here, since this is about behaviour. I did not concentrate on content but on actual mislabeling of editors and their defamation. Yes we need to dispute content, use RfC, follow WP:OR and WP:Synthesis and etc. But ChrisO has been having problems with 6 or so editors within one month and has used many labels for these editors and violate 3rr and etc. Again I think it is simply best to forget this whole episode and concentrate on content in articles. But it is very important not too label editors whom we disagree with and not use comments such as "carrots or stick" and etc. for them. Then the whole atmosphere is ruined. So let us follow civility rules and not label editors, but work on content and use RfC and etc. Threats and intidimation and etc. should be stopped. The main goal of editors in Wikipedia is to create an Encyclopedia that is reliable, so lets work on that goal rather than labeling editors or choosing sides/making groups. I have always tried to be civil and polite and I do not appreciate comments like "Carrots before sticks" or "has edit warred"(when I hardly edited that specific topic) and etc. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You see Nepaheshgar, this is exactly what I mean. They do not talk about the problem BUT only make a "Black List" (ChrisO's page that lists users!) and include me and others like you that disagree with these I am not going to name users (7). They twist and turn around the subject, the prolong the struggle to get an advantage, which results in a poor soul getting block. THEIR hindering progress on Wikipedia with revionist policies, they have the power to fix it, but because they are selfish, they can not give a helping hand. You and I have made some grave mistakes too, which has enabled them to group together. Now they are utterly ignoring evidence of ChrisO's misconduct, that as I said long time ago was happening to me. I do not want to involve myself here, but I just want story to be clearer. Your turning Wikipedia into Politics. Even I am begining to think that I am turning into a squabling buerracrate. Its like when someone asks Bush to answer a question, and he begins to dance around the question, or he says Uh... Uh, um... Uh. I am really sad that this is happening to Wikipedia.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that ChrisO mislabels people instead of concentraing on content and various labels in order to render input from other editors with diffing viewpoints as null. His "Carrots over stick" comments I believe shows arrogance and WP:OWN. Also by defaming people originally and then canvessing editors to look at the defamation, he has created a poor atmosphere. Also as an admin who broke 3rr twice on the same page, he accusses me of edit warring (I hardly edited the topic). Overall though, we can use his help for these articles, but I he should not abuse his admin privilidges to induce an atmosphere of intidimation. I think RfC and mediation when there is content dispute is the best way to go. Also scholars can differ in viewpoints and the main goal is to represent a variety of differing viewpoints based on weight. I myself have emphasized quoting specialists. So when I pointed out Wieshofer/Kuhrt are not specialists in Akkadian (and we found out that Wiesehofer did not make a translation even unlike what originally ChrisO said), I was ignored. So to cut it short, if ChrisO stops mislabeling/defaming editors, then these articles can be fixed keeping in mind pertaining wikipedia guidelines. The matter should not go beyond a content dispute.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me repost my previous unanswered question as a statement: the phrase "editors of concern" does not mean "editors who I am concerned about", it means "editors who have a stake/may have input". Basic business terminology, as related to "OPI" and "OPC"... -t BMW c- 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. Frankly, the way this is being misrepresented is making it obvious that some people are just seeking to find offence wherever they can. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I find comments like this extremely troublesome: "This repeated requirement that etiquette prevail over quality, that minding your p's and q's with whoever is far more important than having specialized editors formally prepared in their subjects, is absurd." As an expert in my subject area, I tend to run at odds with other editors. However, they mostly tend to be with people who know what they are talking about. Regardless, none of that would justify me creating a page that singles out those editors, puts up their bias, or gives me an excuse to ignore what they state. I disagree with Geogre and Awadewit all the time. However, I still respect their opinions to the point that, although I disagree, I try to accommodate their input. That is what consensus is about. Its not about attacking people. Its not about saying "here is who is wrong and here is where they are wrong" and ignoring them. A degree of any kind does not give you an excuse to ignore other people's input, nor does it give you an excuse to override standard Wikipedia policy. We are a community of editors who work together for a common goal. If you want to be an expert designing your encyclopedia without having to deal with others, then Wikipedia is probably not the best place for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the actual content of this incident, I'm inclined to colour this discussion simply one giant "tl;dr" thread. Some sanity: Chris—don't use your sysop tools inappropriately. Elonka—another user's userspace is that user's userspace; wading in and forcing your opinion on that page is inappropriate. If you think a page is indeed inappropriate, discuss it with that user (and if your reaction to that concept is "no way, he wouldn't listen," you probably have too much of a personal history to warrant being involved—in that case, leave it to somebody uninvolved). If that fails, MfD it. This ChrisO-Elonka quarrel is really not worth our time, however. AGK 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Amen. AGK for President. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• I understand that you have to color this discussion as tl;dr. But it often it leads to bad things when people involved in a dispute do not fully read the dispute and make invalid conclusions on it, which may decide history. Thanks, this is a point to all users on this page, not just MfD, MfD is somewhat correct too, if I had to read this whole dispute here, I would get a headache too. Cheers.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

My goodness. Surely the contributions to this thread from Ariobarza and Nepaheshgarwould make splendid material, and indeed might be a case in point, for Elonka's excellent essay called Wikipedia:Tag team. What do you think, Elonka? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

comment I think it is the other way around. I have not agreed/disagreed with Ariobarzan, but we can see that ChrisO actually canvessed people to his page.

Move..I think the page created by ChrisO should be move to a particular Wiki-project like Classics, ancient history, wiki-project Iran or even a new project: "Achaemenid Persian Empire". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a page that disparages the contributions of other users is appropriate for Wikipedia, and a moving to a mainstream location would be even more damaging. This page should be immediately deleted and the user warned about creating such content in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This page disparages the contributions of other users. Are we going to delete every page that discusses problems with other editors? Is there really something that wrong about discussing a series of articles on particular subject on someone's user page? As for canvassing, is a person's userspace covered by 'community discussion'? I don't know, but I doubt it. And I note that he invited Tundrabuggy to comment also. When there are general problems like this (and there definitely are problems with these articles) is there no way we can work collaboratively to solve them? dougweller (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of disparagement to go around on the talk pages of the articles. No one is complaining that there is anything wrong with, as you put it, "discussing a series of articles on particular subject on someone's user page." This problem is the focus on the editors, rather than encyclopedic issues. Re the invite to comment, I assumed I was invited in order demonstrate that ChrisO was neutral in his canvassing. He should have invited all of theeditors whom he named, to comment. Disparaging remarks about editors do not belong on wiki, either in a user page or on any other page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course the disparaging remarks need to be removed and appropriate action should be taken for the initial disparaging remarks. But overall, if it is moved to a particular wiki-project, and the disparaging remarks are removed, the article can work out. Also he did invite Tundrabuggy to comment, he did not invite many of the other editors that he disparaged initially. The way to work collaboratively is to remove disparaging remarks about editors, do not mislabel them and then move the content problems to the appropriate wiki-project. I propose creating a wiki-project for ancient Persian if an appropriate wiki-project does not exist. But to have this sort of page in your own user-space and have total control on it (even lock it when you feel like it) is not appropriate.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that some editors (including yourself, Nepaheshgar) have been engaging in bad editing. The solution to that is not for you to complain about people who are trying to fix the problem, but to stop editing badly in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a personal review

In fact Nepaheshgar had some very good ideas which you did not address. I agree with his view of this completely. How does labeling other editors as "bad editors" help you "fix" the problem? Simply because you disagree with the perspective of others does not make them "bad editors." Making such statements about good faith editors shows a lack of AGF as well as of Civil, a core Wiki value. The page should be refactored without name-calling and disparaging remarks or else completely deleted. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said. The mislabeling and disparaging remarks about editors should stop. Lets not forget this originally started when the page he created had disparaging remarks about editors and then he canvessed 40 or so people to view the disparaging remarks. So if the intention is to improve the quality of articles, lets discuss the problems of these articles in an appropriate wiki-project rather than a userspace which can be locked. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Doug - "This page disparages the contributions of other users. Are we going to delete every page that discusses problems with other editors?" This page does not list others, cite where they have problems editing, and keep that list up for everyone to see. Any list that collects editors and criticizes their editing ability instead of working to form a consensus is highly inappropriate. If ChrisO had a problem with those editors, he could either work with them or come to ANI. Furthermore, an admin compiling such a list can be very problematic, as it would remove all ability to view their actions as neutral or looking at the situation neutrally, and it can have a chilling affect as a pseudo administrative warning to those editors without going through proper channels. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is no longer an issue. Per requests,[47][48] ChrisO has graciously updated the subpage to address concerns.[49] I, for one, am satisfied with his changes, and withdraw any objections to the page. ChrisO, thanks for your efforts to de-escalate the related disputes.  :) --Elonka 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)