User talk:Tundrabuggy

This is my talk page. I use it to talk to myself. If you wish to talk to me, please talk softly. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. Please bear in mind these principles when you contribute to articles on the topic.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shopping for uninvolved admins

Some might call it trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FTN#Charles_Enderlin_and_Muhammad_al-Durrah more shopping here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

Link to the Court Decision re Muhammed Al-Dura

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF

Rough translation re AugeanStables: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/category/france/

On Wiki Policy

WP:OR

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

WP:TALK The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you - unless, of course, you have objective proof to the contrary. Objective proof means something which can be validated by a third party. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you is not proof of bad faith! Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) --my bolds

from an Al-Dura Op-Ed from Jerusalem Post

THE RECENT verdict, besides usefully underscoring the right to criticize the press and its sometimes dangerously hasty product, also calls much-needed attention to the ways in which world opinion is shaped by perceptions that are themselves shaped by a not infallible media. The al-Dura affair, like the myth of a massacre in Jenin in April 2002, has been so fervently seized by those who seek confirmation for their belief in Israeli culpability, that it is likely never to be erased from international consciousness. It by now stands well beyond the reach of refutation.

That fact ought to give pause to Israeli officials, like Israeli ambassador to Paris Danny Sheck, who criticized Karsenty for so doggedly pursuing the matter. As for the rest of us, the sordid affair teaches a valuable lesson about the dangerous enthusiasms, especially in Muslim societies, and especially among those who claim to speak for an awakened conscience, for modern myths of Jewish evil. --my bolds Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The warning above

Please note that ChrisO is an involved administrator in several ways, and cannot personally sanction you for disagreeing with him. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO misrepresenting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy_theory_and_BLP_issues_-_eyes_requested

BE BOLD

from WIKI BE BOLD:

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article—it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.

Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator". Be bold and drop your opinion there.

and

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

Editing advice

When editing articles under probation, if you are reverted, you should avoid edit warring, and instead engage in discussion on the talk page in order to establish a compromise. Please note that I'm advising you engage in discussion instead of edit warring, not edit war and debate simultaneously. Given the tense nature of the current dispute, I recommend that you establish consensus on the talk page before making any significant changes. If you continue to edit war, then you are going to be banned from editing this topic. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah Page now locked

Muhammad_al-Durrah page is now locked until consensus can be achieved that he was killed dead, and that to believe anything else is to adhere to a conspiracy theory. Isn't consensus a neat thing? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

With edits like this, it has become evident that you are unable to contribute productively to Muhammad al-Durrah. As such, you are banned from editing Muhammad al-Durrah or Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah for a period of three months (until September 10, 2008). Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

G'day, please dont feel silenced by this topic ban; admins are starting to hand out topic bans liberally whenever one editor is making problematic edits, and primarily editing only a single article. Please take this in your stride, edit some other articles for a month or so, and then ask me or another admin to review your topic ban. If you have demonstrated that you are able to work effectively on other articles, this topic ban will likely be lifted. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can read about it here. The topic ban by MZMcBride should not been seen as "discipline". He made a decision along the lines of: as you have thus far primarily edited a single topic, and that topic is controversial, and you made a very controversial edit, ... you should go edit some other articles for a while. It may seem crazy, but the task of administrating controversial topics is a bit crazy. The best thing you can do is to edit on a different topic for a while. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, based on your excellent progress and solid edits to other articles, I'd like to partially lift your ban for now, and invite you to resume participation at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. Please avoid actual edits to the article for a bit longer, but if you keep on in this vein, we should be able to get that lifted as well. I recommend that you endeavor to find a balance, where no more than 50% of your edits are related to al-Durrah, and that will help to address any remaining concerns. Best, Elonka 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Elonka. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, just as a spot-check: Your recent contributions to Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah have been excellent, so good job on that. Your comments are thorough, thoughtful, civil, and you have been making specific article-based suggestions for changes. I am very pleased.  :) I would love to lift your article-editing ban as well, but I see from looking at your contribs, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), that over 90% of your edits are still focused on the al-Durrah article, so I'm afraid that I cannot lift your editing ban yet. If you could please try to find a better balance of editing though, I am confident that the editing ban could be lifted quickly. There are definitely lots of things to be done on Wikipedia! You could help out at a cleanup category, or add a needed stub to keep something from being a redlink.

If nothing else, click on Random article a few times and see where it takes you. If a page doesn't look interesting, or as though it's something you'd like to help with, click the button again, and keep clicking.  :) When I do it, I'm usually stopped within a dozen clicks, and find something that I either want to tweak, or at least tag as being in desperate need of a {{cleanup}} or {{unreferenced}} banner.  ;) Or, check one of the RfC lists:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex

There are usually dozens of articles listed there within the last 30 days, where other editors are literally begging for a third-party to come in and just offer an outside opinion, which could be anything from a superficial "off the top of your head" comment, to an in-depth analysis of the subject and/or the dispute. Any comments you could offer, I am sure would be greatly appreciated, and each such comment would "count" as working on something non-Durrah. Also, any edits in a cleanup vein, even if just something as seemingly simple as adding a {{cleanup}} tag, would also help to improve the balance of your contrib list. --Elonka 02:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

Just FYI, AfDs are not "votes".[1] Technically, they are discussions. It's also important that you avoid any perception that you are canvassing. Truly, the best way that you can help right now, is to make actual substantive edits (even if they are just formatting edits) to other articles. There are lots of things that need doing in cleanup categories, I strongly recommend picking a few. --Elonka 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you're doing some work on other articles! It really will help strengthen your voice in other controversial discussions.  :) Also, for your userpage, what I recommend is phrasing things slightly differently. Instead of "edits that weren't on al-Durrah", instead try making one section that just lists, "articles I have worked on". Pretty much any editor who will be looking for your contribution history, will easily be able to review things from there. We have tools where we can hover our mouse over an article link (or username), and instantly see the most recent changes or edits (let me know if you'd like to learn more about how that works). Best, Elonka 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing some good work on other articles, and your userpage is looking a lot better, too! After you've worked on two or three other non-Durrah articles, it'll be much easier to get some of your restrictions lifted.  :) For your userpage, you might also want to look into adding some babelboxes to give an indication of which languages you can understand. If you'd like help with that, let me know!  :) --Elonka 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Sorry, I was away for a while and missed the discussion. I also see you have been banned from the Al-Durrah article; rather unfortunate, considering that there are others equally, if not more, deserving of such bans. Well, apparently a group named CAMERA tried very ineffectually infiltrate Wikipedia (as opposed to a pro-Palestinian Yahoo group which do so quite effectively for a couple of years), and, as a result, pro-Israel editors are getting rather the short end of the stick these days. Don't let it get you down, though; these things are cyclical, and as the relevant articles deteriorate even further into POV mush, eventually the masses will rise up in disgust. Have patience. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you for your note; the feedback is much appreciated. It was always a difficult article to write neutrally, and it's even harder now with this court decision, but hopefully as more people turn up to look, something will get sorted out. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO Appeal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPalestine-Israel_articles

Thank you for your note. I think you should still consider making a statement of your own. One of the things I left out of my statement, in order to keep it brief, was the comparison with your case. It would be helpful if you could describe the appeals made on your behalf to have your ban shortened, and the response you received, which amounted to "a single-page ban is no big deal, go find something else to do". That should be the response to ChrisO, as well. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's useful for other voices to make their own statements. Regardless of whether you support the appeal or not, everyone's statement is usually an interesting snapshot of their own view of the situation, and it is useful for the arbitrators to get a well-rounded view of things. And especially since you (Tundrabuggy) were one of the editors banned from the page at one time, and you are a fairly new editor, your honest appraisal of the situation would be valuable. It doesn't need to be diffed, either. Diffs are helpful, but not required. The main thing to keep in mind is to write from the assumption that the arbitrators reading your statement may well have never heard of you, or me, or ChrisO, or even Muhammad al-Durrah, so don't assume that they already know anything, just write as though you were giving a quick explanation of things to a "man on the street". Just give an honest appraisal, in a post that's no more than 500 words, and you'll do fine.  :) You may also find this page useful, though it's for a slightly different venue (actual cases rather than an appeal). Still though, it has some good suggestions: WP:ADVICE. --Elonka 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple other suggestions on your statement: Most people tend not to bold parts of their statements, because it makes it sound like they're SHOUTING. A calm and understated demeanor is usually much more powerful at ArbCom. The language there tends to have a somewhat formal style that can take awhile to get the hang of. I find it helpful to think about "putting on the kimono" and being very Japanese. Bow a lot.  :) Also, it's usually considered good form to sign your statement. If you do decide to modify your statement (and you are definitely allowed to do so), keep in mind that the arbitrators probably won't know anything about the article content, so when you say "the boy was killed", they'll probably have no idea who or what you're talking about, and if you "lose" them there, it can weaken your further points. So you might want to tone down the "content-specific" comments, and just stick with user conduct. Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka. I appreciate your help and suggestions. Not sure about the kimono part though. Would you take a look and let me know if it still sounds too harsh? I added something on BLP -- it is somewhat content-specific though, but I wasn't sure how else to approach it. Is that ok ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, okay on the Kimono. What would be a better analogy?  :)

As for the statement, I wouldn't necessarily go the route of multiple dated comments. Instead, merge everything together into one comment (500 words max). My guess is that most of the arbs haven't even read any of the statements yet, because they're probably busy with something else. It may take a week before we even get a single response, or several arbs may suddenly weigh in with "reject reject reject reject" all within an hour, it's hard to tell where their attention is. But for now, you can probably assume that they haven't read it yet, so just massage your statement until you feel that you like it.  :) The main thing to look at, is to keep it from getting too detailed. Like as soon as you say "recent court decision", you're implying that the arbs will understand what that means, and I assure you, they probably won't. For a practical example of this, go to WP:ANI, pick a thread at random, read through it, and try to glean from that one thread what's going on, and further, what it is that should be done next. I think you'll rapidly find that it's very difficult to come up to speed on a dispute, when you're "coming up from zero". That may give you more insight on writing a statement for a similarly "clueless" audience.  :)

BTW, if you're on IMs, I am usually easy to find on AIM, MSN, Yahoo, and Google. Feel free to chat directly if you'd like to speed up communication. :) --Elonka 21:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)