User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Noticed your comments

Hi, Sean. I noticed your comments on Blade of the Northern Lights' page. Would you please take a look at AndresHerutJaim's edit history since Blade made his 26 March comment? AHJ has violated his topic ban since then, over and over, and has certainly earned an indef block by now, if you take the latest string of evasions in his contribution history into consideration along with his persistent block evasions via IP hopping. The community is out of options with this guy, and it's my opinion that no one should have to waste any more of their time on his shenanigans. But if it is necessary to file an AE Request, even in so blatant an instance, would you be able to go ahead? For reasons I won't disclose here, it would take me literally hours to prepare an AE request to a standard of quality that I think respects everyone else's time. I know it's never a cakewalk for anyone else to do well, either, yourself included, but I just can't do it myself any time in the next few days, and it certainly does need to happen. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh; dang it. I just noticed from the section above that you're also very limited in what you can do right now. I wouldn't have asked if I'd seen that first ... I'm tempted to just revert my mention of this here, but maybe some friendly TPS will see the post, and will be able to give it the time it needs.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Thanks for letting me know. I hadn't noticed actually because all of the topic violations after my last comment on Blade of the Northern Lights' page are in articles I don't have watchlisted. Foolishly I assumed he'd got the message. I'll file a report. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Is not there was some agreement you will not post in the AE?--Shrike (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No, not unless the agreement was at a meeting I didn't attend and no one informed me of the decision, perhaps on Facebook, or a StandWithUs meeting I missed. A lot of messages on my talk page get revdel'd, so I may have missed the memo. What happened is that I imposed the following constraint on myself, "I'll simply not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me", see here, a constraint that I have honored so far, but could violate at any time. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sean, I greatly appreciate your generosity in finding the time for that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
@Shrike, if you're still following Sean's page: Your question doesn't mean you think AHJ hasn't fully earned an appropriate sanction, I hope? I assume that was just a polite reminder, to keep Sean from mistakenly violating some agreement you thought might exist? Rather than just automatic support for a like-minded editor, I mean, regardless of what he's done?
That must be so, since I have no doubt you put your dedication to the principles by which the project operates ahead of your natural and understandable emotional desire to support Israel. If that's not the case for any particular person re a topic area, as appears to be the case with AHJ, for example, then that person obviously shouldn't be editng in the area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It was me who reported him in the AE in first place and you right it was intended as polite reminder for Sean.Also doubt about my motives make me think that you forgot WP:AGF.--Shrike (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I would never doubt your motives, Shrike. And it hurts that you think I'd forget to assume good faith. Your thinking so could, itself, be construed as a failure to AGF, you know. I don't construe it so, of course, being the paragon of AGF that I am.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ( Are we having fun, yet? And Does Israel also have a 1st of April tradition similar to that practiced elsewhere, btw? )
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edits under WP:ARBPIA

Hey I noticed your comment in my report and I agree with you.I think we should ask for some clarification from the committee.Could you do it as your english much better then mine.--Shrike (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit concerned by what the admin said, although I suppose their interpretation is potentially valid. I guess it depends on the rules used to establish the meaning of the word "relating" in the phrase "relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict". For me, these rules need to be simple, explicit and measurable. If a person can make an edit to an article, and that edit violates their topic ban, it follows that the article contains at least one thing that establishes a relationship between the article and ARBPIA. For me, one thing in an article is enough for the article to qualify as "relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict", although the 1RR restriction itself would only apply to that one thing. This approach seems simple, objective and internally consistent. If we have to rely on subjective assessments of whether an entire article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict and therefore everything in that article is, in principal, covered by 1RR, things become vague and a matter of opinion. Maybe this has been discussed before somewhere. I'll try to have a look later today and ask for clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't have anything to do with Israel/Palestine and I don't have any topic ban, so I can't violate it :) NeoRetro (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not about you. It's about the rules. Even if it were the case that your edit violated a 1RR restriction, you probably wouldn't have been sanctioned for it. Editors aren't normally sanctioned for breaking rules they aren't aware of especially if it's not obvious. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd support a request for clarification from the committee. The problem I see, if your interpretation is accepted, is that one article could contemporarily be under two different sets of rules, 1-rr for certain edits and 3-rr for all others. This has the potential to become incredibly confusing for all editors involved and also to lead to contradictory decisions by admins especially in dubious cases... That's why I think there is a difference between a revert restriction (imposed on an article) and a topic ban (imposed on all edits)... But, as I say, if you file a request for clarification, I'll be happy to chime in, if I can. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose some confusion and wiggle room is inevitable either way. If I manage to track down previous discussions and figure out where to ask for clarification your input would be appreciated, so thanks for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that was far more obvious than I expected. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Sean.hoyland. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

could you help fix Palestinian political violence#Violence against civilians

Hi , could you help fix Palestinian political violence#Violence against civilians that part need rearrangement (mostly images and grammer).109.226.49.230 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your work, I'm sorry that a dispute arise about that (didn't thought a news articles could make such strange affects) , If I could find direct access to some of the people that are being quoted will that help ? btw would forums like (tapuz + live journal) could be even counted (russian + hebrew) .109.226.14.51 (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It's okay, don't worry about. Forums don't normally qualify as reliable sources but if you could find any other news reports in any language they probably would. Newspapers usually qualify. I'll have a look for some sources when I get a chance too because interfering with the emergency services ability to deal with emergencies strikes me as something that is perhaps serious enough for the Israeli government to formally complain to the PA or other bodies, or perhaps for human rights groups to say something about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You might have noticed that I didn't add any information about when these DoS attacks happened. I think we have sources covering 2004-2007. I didn't want to add any dates because it would give the impression that it stopped whereas I think what probably happened was that the emergency services simply introduced new filters to deal with it. The problem is, I don't have a source to confirm installation of technology to filter out the calls. All we have at the moment is a source that talks about plans to install such a system. This is another reason I think we need more sources because this was a long term problem over several years and at the moment we don't have a good overview of when it started, when it stopped, and how it was stopped etc. We only have some samples of news reports while the calls were happening. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The first account I found was in 2004 and I have some from 2008 talking about installation of such as system I'll try to find one in english
as a sidenote found few related points (fireboms against hospitals)  : [1] [2] , [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.14.51 (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Spok

This year April 1. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Logic. Maybe the discussion was closed too soon. It is interesting what would Spok say, WP:DRV maybe? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of the section

Do you think "Abusive phone calls to emergency services" is better?(Its according to jpost)--Shrike (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't mind either. I think they both summarize the sources and accurately describe the calls. The objective seems to be more to do with interference rather than abuse though. There is probably a proper name for these kinds of calls to emergency lines intended to jam the lines but I can't think what it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Denial-of-service hoax calling?     ←   ZScarpia   12:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
why hoax ? at least what it is written at forums the phone calles resolted in lack of help for people , (and hangup to anyone with severe arabik accsent) 109.226.14.139 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The "hoax" word refers to the nature of the call. See Hoax_call#Legality for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
yes but (excuse me if I make a serious reading error) , As I understand a hoax call (or prank calls) are for "practical joke" and reading the subject it doesn't sound that any of the memebers of the call handle it as a joke but rather as mean to make a point or acording to the spoksman criple the abuility to respond (p.s. sorry for the grammer) 109.226.14.139 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Prank certainly means joke, but the word hoax doesn't suggest a comic intent, at least not to me. Anyway, we don't need to use it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
ok , found a refernce of 129,604 (http://www.mdais.org/h/316/&mod=download&me_id=8767 80 pages of text in hebrew) phone calls for one year I dought if it can be counted as anything without bad intent 109.226.14.139 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What does the paragraph that ends with 129604 on page 59 say ? The document is protected so I can't copy it into google translate. I couldn't find an English version of the report. I can't see anything about Palestinians next to the 'מטרידים' calls part. Please could you confirm that the source directly supports what you added to the article and if it doesn't you need to remove the content. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
They don't state that it blocked 129,604 from palestnians but rathers the filtering system on the national backup site recognzied 129604 harrasing (I don't know if that is the best translation) and worked with/disconnected the callers. in a previos ref (82 and others) it says that a filetring system will be installed to stop harresing calls from palestnians from gaza.the second ref about the police filtering system was developed for fithing against abusing phonecalls. also removed it for now - MDA 2008 report, the filtering system installed to deal with abusive phone calls by palestnians,recognized 129604 abusive phonecalls from March 2008 till December 2008 109.226.14.139 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
Message added 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of massacres on Palestine page

The problem is that there are several editors with a clear pro-"Palestinian" bias which troll that article and the History of Palestine article making sure that there is almost no reference to the Old Yishuv or the massacres it suffered. The upside is that there attempts to deny/cover up these events actually led to the 1834 Safed pogrom article's sources being improved and its content expanded by other editors during their attempt to delete that article.

DionysosElysees (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I read that. My response is this. There are rules that govern content and everyone must follow them all the time, especially in articles covered by discretionary sanctions. If you focus on following policy and guidelines rather than concerning yourself with the potential nature of other editors, you are much more likely to achieve what you want in terms of article content. If you are concerned about other editors persistently breaking the rules, and you have compelling evidence to support that view, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but that is usually a last resort. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Here in relies the problem: Editors then claim undo weight. An editor just responded to me claiming that it was a brief summary so that the massacres inclusion was irrelevant. Yet the alleged mass expulsion of "Palestinians" from Israel during the late 40s is mentioned. If you ask any uninvolved person I'm sure they would be disgusted by someone claiming that a group possibly being kicked out of a war area is more significant then undisputed borderline genocidal incidents.

DionysosElysees (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A genuinely uninvolved person probably wouldn't care. They would decide relative weights by systematically surveying the coverage given to the various issues by high quality reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree if you asked the question: "Whats worse allegedly kicking someone out of their house or killing them?" What do you think the VAST MAJORITY of people would answer? DionysosElysees (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you're talking about me, I hope you don't mind if I chime in. DionysosElysees, you've misunderstood the question I asked. I didn't ask which was worse, I asked which has had more historical significance. If you were to look at 100 books about the history of Palestine, how many of them would mention the massacres of the Jews, and how many would mention the expulsion of the Palestinians? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I think and content decisions aren't based on subjective measures of wrongdoing. You just need to present high quality sources that directly support the content you want to add and try to make a case for inclusion based on coverage of the issue by sources as Malik says. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What does quantity have to do with it? You're going to tell me (unofficially I understand) that there isn't a clear pro-"Palestinian" propaganda to promote a myth that "Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together before the advent of Zionism?" DionysosElysees (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Quantity and quality of sources is how we determine whether something is being given due or undue weight. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look for yourself there are over 27 sources now on the 1834 Safed pogrom page that Malik Shabazz's ideological compatriots tried to have deleted when there were less. So if 27 sources are used in the "Palestine" and "Palestinian people" articles then these undos and reverts wont be an issue anymore right?

DionysosElysees (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you add 27 footnotes, you will probably be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That article is quite interesting but treating fellow editors as an outgroup won't help and undos and reverts are always an issue. I don't know whether briefly mentioning these incidents deserves to be in the article anymore than briefly mentioning Operation Cast Lead, but you should aim for collaboration rather than confrontation. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Being that you guys are claiming by accusation of bias by the involved editors in favor a fictitious "Palestinian" narrative where "Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together before Zionism" is baseless. I have asked several other editors to look at the dispute.

DionysosElysees Talk/Stalk 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read Strawman fallacy. And WP:CANVASS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Hey Sean, thanks for the direction to the WP. That's good to know. I was wondering though why: 'most identified as the location of biblical Hebron' has been retained....most identified by whom? or what? depends what you're reading or who you are, no? If we're going to ensure neutrality, surely that clause needs to be amended? Thanks Leika80 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Leika

Yes, I wanted to delete that, but I would have had to delete everything else too because nothing is sourced at the moment, apart for the standard content statement. I started having a look for some sources. Even a quick look in google books suggests that there are plenty. For example, even the first 2 listed in googles books, at least for me, are a lot better than nothing. HRW's 'Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District' report. It's from 2001 but perhaps they have issued a more recent one. And 'The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin has a number of things to say about the place. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some work needs to be done. My thesis is due tomorrow night so I can't do anything for a couple of days. I'll start looking around next week and see what I can do... Thanks for your help so far.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leika80 (talkcontribs) 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Could you please include this source if you have a time too I think it have interesting historical information [5] P.219.thanks.--Shrike (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How did I get the warning ?

info from page had been revered as the cite could not be acceded [6], I found it and I get in the middle of some edit war? does that mean my edits should be reverted from that page (found lots of sources in English and not only in Hebrew) or I should just stop editing for 24 hours ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.46 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That article is covered by a WP:1RR restriction, as are all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you make an edit and someone reverts it, you should open a discussion on the article talk page and try to agree the content+sources with other editors there rather than trying again and getting reverted again as happened here several times within 24hours. The 1RR restriction is intended to prevent this kind of back and forth reverting and encourage discussion on the article's talk page so that things can be worked out there before they are put into the article. There's no rush. See WP:BRD for a description of the "bold, revert, discuss" process. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you , will see , I also add a note on talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.46 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

remove of a hint about cencership

I've add a link for censorship for the alleged chem attack but it had been undo , that edition might be POV and it is a speculation but as history tells about the country in many cases when the censorship is on nothing will go out (like with the Anat_Kamm-Uri_Blau_affair - you still have bloggers that store a bag if they had been interrogated as with http://room404.net/?page_id=10595) would it be ok to reintroduce it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.14.184 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source, not just a blog, that specifically says X happened but reporting X in Israel was prevented by censorship. That is what I meant by the edit summary 'not in the source'. The source itself has to directly support what we say in an article. Israel can't censor non-Israeli media and as you say there are people who bypass the censorship/gag orders. For example, in Mister X (prisoner), you can see that there is no mention of who the prisoner was, but that information could be added despite the gag order and non-reporting in Israel because it has been reported outside of Israel as allegedly being Ali Reza Asgari, Iran’s former deputy defense minister. e.g. http://www.forward.com/articles/142723/ Sean.hoyland - talk 05:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone

You edited this article, which I had recently edited, immediately after an aggressive discussion with myself at an AE. On the Talk page you unduly made reference to a AE and I feel that your subsequent conduct may be vindictive. Please stop.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You made a bad edit and a bad revert. I'm not interested in your feelings. I'm only interested in what you do. I suggest you don't make anymore bad edits/reverts. One way to avoid making bad edits/reverts is to collaborate with the variety of very reasonable and knowledgeable people in the topic area who try to engage you in dialogue on content issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Guess what, I always do work with other parties and you'd find it interesting to see this. You are not aware of the circumstances that precipitated the AE and have formed a rash judgement. Stop maligning me. Stop hounding me.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You are wasting your time. What you believe to be the state of affairs isn't reliable and doesn't matter to me. What you do matters because it affects content and the functioning of the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

All for peace

Please explain this edit on talk page.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity

Hi Sean, on the Alan Lomax page you blanked out this paragraph on the grounds that unless backed by a RS it represented a synthesis to connect Alan Lomax with the United Nations:

n 2001, in the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington of September 11, UNESCO's Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity declared the safeguarding of languages and intangible culture on a par with protection of individual human rights and as essential for human survival as biodiversity is for nature,[1] ideas first articulated by Alan Lomax.

In 2006 there was a conference, The Lomax Legacy: Folklore in a Globalizing Century, at the Library of Congress at which one of the attendees was Preston D. Hardison who served on the UN Committee for cultural and biological diversity since its inception in 1995. I don't know this would count as a RS, but I would like to assure you and wikipedia readers that, while it is true that while many anthropologists and biologists shared these concerns, Lomax articulated them before the committee was formed in 1995 -- and was very vocal about them indeed at countless anthropology conferences! It is no stretch to say there was a connection. Mballen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I blanked it despite agreeing with what it said. It was just me being a policy pedant. The section caught my eye because I was trying to figure why there wasn't anything about ACE. I'm sure we can find some sources that make a direct connection between Lomax and the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity and talk about them together because, as you say, there really is a direct connection in many ways. I'll have a look too. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the ACE document "About Cultural Equity" is fit for purpose and the associated "An Appeal for Cultural Equity" by Lomax could be cited too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sean --I am relieved to understand that you agreed with the gist of the statement you blanked out but took issue with the manner in which it was expressed. I was concerned about making the article too long - basically. (Also wondered about appropriateness of citing ACE). At least that's my rationalization. Also reluctant, because of other commitments - you know the drill. However, thanks to all this I now have a clearer mental trajectory of Lomax's life and the consistency of his interests, beginning in the late forties with his defiance of the reactionary turn in the nascent field of professionalized folklore studies (the sharp right turn is a matter of record) and his decision to strike out in a different direction from his father and do something theoretical. It is all in John Szwed's book, though that book is so full of detail it is not really brought to the fore. The story of his life is not what maybe I and most other people had pictured, in short. So maybe I will do it, sooner or later. Mballen (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Imperial!

What did you study? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Geology Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

If you think that someone is sock

Just file SPI.I think its not good throwing accusation for editing environment. --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered that I don't want Luke 19 Verse 27 blocked ? I want him to stay out of the topic area (he is topic banned) and to stop harassing editors. Of course it's a sock of Lutrinae/Modinyr editing quite openly from Hawaii without any attempt to hide his IPs. He is easily recognizable. I have told him that if he follows the rules I am not interested in him but he is not getting the message. Perhaps he will get it eventually if I send it enough times without me having to file an SPI so that he can continue to contribute outside of the topic area. I am not interested in whether he pretends to be upset about it. It is all fake, everything. I'm not just throwing an accusation for the sake of it. I know what I'm doing. Please try to understand what kind of personality type we are dealing with and how very difficult it is to deal with them. When it's clear that there is no alternative, I will file an SPI. They will be blocked but you can be sure that they will come back. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny staff

[7]--Shrike (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is marvelous...however...
  • "Zero0000, the creator of the Machsom Watch article, is a campaigner active across a range of topics on the Arab-Israeli conflict"...this is why NGO Monitor have trouble qualifying as reliable. They couldn't have picked a worse example of a "campaigner".
  • Obviously I'm a little annoyed that I didn't get mentioned given that it is very simple to establish the following from highly reliable sources on the internet that have commented on my editing; "Arabist editor", "(biased) administrator", "is a schmuck", part of the "Arab Islamic militant lobby" etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think when it was written you was not active.Nevertheless its academic source that printed in academic journal so it may used as WP:RS probably in Academic studies about Wikipedia--Shrike (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I guess it probably qualifies for that article. It would be a good source to take to RSN too. The discussion would probably be highly entertaining and interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Something I find curious is that the paper doesn't mention "weight" at all and that there are mentions of "reliability" and "consensus", but no discussion or examination, which I would have thought should have been fairly central. The first mention of reliability comes in a statement about the removal of text which was cited to a reliable source. Investigation shows that the reliable source referred to, was NGO Monitor itself. Not mentioning that seems a little disingenuous to me. Looking at articles written by Andre Obeler (who is CEO of ZionismOnTheWeb.org) I'd say that the credibility of what he says about racism is stretched by the frequency with which he approvingly quotes people such as Natan Sharansky. I see that he thinks that sites such as Wikipedia are being used to spread a social acceptability of antisemitic attitudes and discourse.     ←   ZScarpia   16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That paper is a gem on so many levels. Even better, it's already been added to Machsom Watch... I sometimes wonder whether the topic area would be improved if serious editors gave up and switched to just vandalizing articles Joe Orton style. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
"NGO Monitor should not be taken seriously", The Electronic Intifada. Entirely accurate, not an RS. Oh the irony. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Presumably, this is the edit where Zero0000 justifies this removal by falsely claiming that he or she “removed unsourced attacks.” When the deletion was done, no source was given for any part of the section from which the sentence was removed. From working back through the version history, it doesn't look to me as though a source ever had been given either.     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If you look a bit further it carried on with Special:Contributions/Zeq=CAMERA adding this piece of unreliable settlerist garbage, this Ynet article which doesn't support the content and a WP:CIRCULAR cite to Wikipedia. Of course he had support. The whole thing from CAMERA infiltration, using trash sources, writing a paper about it etc is pretty repulsive and immoral. Still, gotta laugh. In an ideal world Electronic Intifada would write an article about it and ask CAMERA and NGO Monitor to comment so that the circle of absurdity can be closed. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
CAMERA vs Electronic Intifada again. Glucojasinogen might be a real condition and it has two academical sources supporting it by now, so it would be a tendentious editing to dispute it. See Apollo's talk page discussion: after two generations of Wikipedia-inspired Chinese Whispers, people will one day look back at these times of ours and date the beginning of the permanent loss of reliable knowledge in the world to the founding of Wikipedia. Go Wikipediocracy.com! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The Glucojasinogen case is a really nice example. I hadn't heard of that one. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the links.     ←   ZScarpia   10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can you clarify what these criteria are which affect your involvement in AE and what is the purpose of your "self-imposed restriction", if you will arbitrarily lift it "when certain specific criteria I use to decide whether to involve myself in an issue are met", meaning there is no 'restriction' taking place at all?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm let's see, perhaps if you could have been less of an asshole in the way you phrased your question it would have helped. If you had explained how wasting my time engaging with nationalists who bother me about non-content issues benefits the project that would have helped too. But since you asked, if there are sockpuppets present or if I perceive someone to be acting unethically (for example by putting outside interests before our obligations here) or making factually inaccurate or irrational statements, or if there is very clear evidence of content being put at risk by advocacy, the use of low quality sources etc, I am much more likely to comment. I might not though. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
What you are describing is standard practice; that when you consider something important, you are more likely to comment. What I am asking is in which circumstances does the restrictive capacity of your pious self-imposed block actually have an effect, as you appear to be stating that when you are anyway disinclined to comment, then ...gasp...you won't, and when you desire to "thrash" about, you still will? And as for your "nationalist" description then "hmmm let's see". The term usually has patriotic connotations, and since neither my country of birth or residence is in the Middle East, I would caution you against such facile heuristic labelling, although I must confess to being more nationlistic then others.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would like further information I suggest you a) explain why I should continue this discussion given that you are behaving like an childish asshole b) why you believe that when you ask for something impolitely you will receive it and c) why you don't examine the AE cases from say 12 February 2012 onwards related to the topic area (there are many) and see if you can figure it out for yourself. I don't understand what your BBC article has to do with me or this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sean I ask you to strike inappropriate comment in first line of your last post. --Shrike (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no intention of complaining about lack of civility as it is understandable for editors' tensions run quite high, when their conduct is being carefully examined. I have no doubt that a man of your experience and background will be intimately capable of identifying a "childish asshole". I have requested this information as you have been asked twice about the exact nature of your 'block' in two separate AE's, which does not appear to have impeded your "thrashing" in any way, and it is to remove all confusion that I seek this clarification. Please can you finally elucidate for all and sundry what I have previously asked, in which circumstances does the restrictive capacity of your 'block' actually curb your editorial behavior?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Shrike, I don't regard it as inappropriate. I regard Ankh's behavior and tone here as inappropriate. Perhaps you should be asking him what he thinks he is going to achieve by behaving this way here. If people come to my page for no other purpose than to cause conflict they should expect to see a selection of colorful words from my native language. There are many others I could have used. Ankh, try to understand that I find you behavior here unacceptable, although I acknowledge your way over-the-line, completely inappropriate, profoundly offensive, completely unwarranted double entendre which I shall let slip because it is quite witty. I have no blocks self imposed or otherwise. There is no thrashing. I have provided you with a list of the criteria. You can see the two (I think) AEs where I have commented, you can see the one (I think) I filed and you can see all of the others where I decided not to comment because they didn't fit my criteria (or I was busy with something else, who knows). I don't have criteria that "curbs" commentary. Not commenting is the default. I have the opposite, specific criteria for commentary. There is nothing pious about it. It is practical and specific. Try to stop acting as if your are entitled to something. You aren't. If you want something from me you will need to behave like a decent person who is here to make the encyclopedia better. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Peace brother, and enjoy the Thai experience.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
re:[8]...settle down, you're deliberately making it even worse. If this is what you regard as legitimate humor you may have been exposed to British culture for too long. It's something you will probably never recover from. The inappropriate comedy scar seems to last forever as far as I can tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Sean.hoyland. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Got it. Thanks for your message. I appreciate it. I try to only communicate off wiki for sockpuppet related issues where confidentiality is necessary, well that and enjoying the occasional hate mail with creative and entertaining threats of violence that originate from Wikipedia editors for reasons I've never fully grasped. Perhaps it would be better if you tried to carry on working on that article. Both of your 'opponents' in that discussion are experienced editors and very reasonable people. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice for WP:ARBPIA articles

Hey I think this important Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Edit_notice_for_WP:ARBPIA_articles.Would you willing to help me with that?--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think my input is necessary or will help there. People like Tim and Anomie can handle it. New editors making mistakes in the topic area isn't something that really concerns me much. It's the established editors and sockpuppets that have the significant impact on content by causing articles to deviate away from policy compliance and there is apparently little or nothing that can be done about this. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Those sock puppets can always claim ignorance but as you want.--Shrike (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Individual editors simply learn to avoid making 1RR technical violations and carry on making different and more complicated kinds of violations that can't be handled by AE. 1RR is good in that it slows editing down but I see little benefit in dealing with individuals who break the rule. If one person breaks it, the situation at the article has usually already deteriorated to the point where the BRD process has broken down. I would be more interested in 1RR if it were a rule that had an impact at the group level, on sets of people and article access, rather than individuals. Colonies of eusocial insects function well, despite there being (contrary to popular belief) quite a lot of internal conflicting interests for a variety of reasons, because when an individual or sets of individuals whose interests are aligned misbehave, everyone pays the price in terms of colony fitness. It's a self-correcting system. The topic area is the opposite, a self-sabotaging system. This is why you don't see me filing 1RR reports. An editor needs to reach something silly like 7RR or keep making the same edit over and over, sometimes for days or weeks before I file something at the edit warring noticeboard or ask for article protection. When I see 1RR violations and edit warring in the topic area I'm much more inclined towards doing things that have an impact at the group level like shutting the article down for a while so the people have no choice but to talk or walk away, or blocking everyone involved in the sequence of edits whether or not they technically violated a bright line rule, but just for a very short and standardized fixed length non-incrementing period like 24 hours so that everyone pays a price and no one gains an advantage. If an editor broke 1RR reverting an edit I made and we were both blocked for 24 hours along with everyone else involved in the sequence of edits, I wouldn't mind at all. It benefits the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

CAMERA

Hi Sean,

Just looking for some advice on the CAMERA. I am interested in having a wider community discussion on the use of CAMERA (and perhaps other sources) in the IP topic area, but I'm not really sure what is the best forum or how to go about it.

I don't think WP:RSN would be the right place as it seems to be generally accepted that it is not an RS for facts in the Wiki voice, but can be used as an RS for its own opinion (as can almost any source).

The problem as I see it is that those editors wanting to include CAMERA as a notable opinion in various articles are not providing evidence that it is a notable opinion for the topic that has been published in RS. Instead they are relying on an original theory that because CAMERA has been described as a "media Watchdog" by RS, that conveys a general notability allowing him then to be quoted on any and all topics that he decides to post a comment on his website. (I say he, because almost all of the material posted on the site is credited to a single person, Alex Safian).

From what I can see the theory of general notability is not compatible with our policies. In my opinion what is required is an RS which directly discusses saffian's opinion in relation to the topic at hand, otherwise it is just original research that because he is a "media watch dog" per RS his opinion on all topics is notable and deserves inclusion without further evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"his website"? http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=55&x_auth=11 and compare to http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=55&x_auth=10 or http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=55&x_auth=9 etc. Soosim (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The short answer is I don't know what to do about it. I've been watching events across multiple articles and your attempts to understand the strange ways decisions are being made. I agree with your view on the content issue. I think the blunt word for it is advocacy. It's a WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV policy violation that can, in principal, result in topic bans. I guess the right place for a discussion is WP:IPCOLL but I'm skeptical about the utility of a wider community discussion on the use of CAMERA for a number of reasons. If you look at pretty much any centralized discussion that addresses sources like CAMERA you'll see that they are usually contaminated by sockpuppets and editors for which policy compliance comes second. You've already seen on various talk pages that none of the arguments for inclusion address the lack of evidence and therefore deal with the NPOV policy violation. It's difficult to know what to do because on the one hand I don't want to play the game, no evidence means there is nothing to discuss, the content doesn't qualify for inclusion and it has to be removed no matter how much noise there is on the talk page, and on the other hand, something has to be done to end reverting without justification, potentially triggering edit warring, and restoring content that very clearly doesn't comply with a mandatory policy...sigh. Sorry, probably not a very helpful reply. Maybe you should try to get some more input. Zero0000, as an editor who consistently makes rational decisions and understands policy, might have some thoughts on the best approach that are more helpful than mine. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the input. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Danger!! Mines!!.JPG
By the way, you may be interested to know that the editor with the third highest number of contributions to Arab citizens of Israel was a CAMERA activist. If you don't know already, they are the one who said...
  • "We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it trained...So please if you want to win this war help us build ou army."
Sean.hoyland - talk 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Application of ARBPIA notice

Hi, Sean. I assumed the hasbara article would fall under ARBPIA restrictions myself. On consideration, though, it occurs to me it probably doesn't, although I wish it did. Good on you, btw, for not taking the bait you were childishly offered in a previous section: I admire your self-possession.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, I'm not happy about adding ARBPIA templates to any article, although I've probably added hundreds, and I have little to no confidence in the opaque and fuzzy methods I use to decide whether to add the template. I think someone else should be doing it, someone who knows, in a more formal sense, what they are doing and why, an admin for example. It's just that there doesn't seem to be a formalized decision procedure for identifying articles that are within scope of ARBPIA and there is a lack of ownership of the process, which strikes me as quite odd. If you would like to remove it please go ahead. I'm interested to hear why you think it's out of scope for ARBPIA. Looking at the "Hasbara Handbook"[9], my Bible obviously, I think it shows that Hasbara and the conflict have a symbiotic relationship rather like lichen, with the conflict supplying hasbara with the nutrients it requires. Apparently I'm saying hasbara is like fungus, which wasn't quite the destination I was aiming for. I see hasbara and the conflict as intimated related because the conflict takes place across all spaces whether it's on the battlefield, in the media, in the political sphere etc, and hasbara tries to deal with them all. I think this is apparent from the Wikipedia article too. Without a conflict to feed it I think hasbara would just wither and die. Still, this is all just subjective noise so I'll stop now. I agreed sometime ago to ask for clarification about certain aspects of ARBPIA, whether part of an article can be covered by 1RR while the rest isn't, but I haven't got to it yet. I guess deciding whether a ARBPIA template should be added needs clarification too although there's always something more interesting and enjoyable to do e.g. trying to find out anything, anything at all, about the mysterious, very talented and apparently long forgotten Walter 'Tangle Eye' Jackson, a prisoner at Mississippi State Penitentiary who appears on musical research field recordings from 1947... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well said. My initial thought was that the hasbara article isn't directly about the I/P conflict, even though the great bulk of hasbara is. There's some that isn't, e.g. the recent push to portray Israel as a vibrant, flourishing economy, and a place of greater entrepreneurial vigor than one finds in other countries, which is, in my opinion, blatant propaganda. But on reflection, I agree the template should stay. Even the Start-up Nation article had one, and its inclusion in ARBPIA was upheld by admin consensus somewhere or other, iirc.
Thanks for the "bible" ... I read the part about how the failure of the peace process was all the Palestinians' fault with amusement, given that I'd just seen Olmert's statements to CNN yesterday at the Jerusalem Post's "Fighting for the Zionist Dream" conference in NYC. He said that no Israeli Prime Minister can make peace, that it's not politically possible. I don't understand how neocon money from America could have sunk him, though, as he said it did. I know almost nothing about the structure of Israel's government or elections, but I do, of course, know that money can buy the government one wants, if one has enough of it... Oh, I sent you a brief e-mail about a sock. I've never socked, and never will, but if I did, I think I'd do so as "Ohio 'Tangle Snout' Standard". Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Replied to your mail. Thanks for the link to that talk page above because I forgot your comment "...chose to favor me with "psychotic" on someone else's talk page. I didn't mind too much, though. The man who talks to me through the toaster said I shouldn't worry about it, and so did the magical aardvaark who lives in my bathtub." Marvelous. As for the handbook, the only problem I have with it is that it doesn't seem to have any pictures of puppies and kittens. People like those. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad you appreciated the toaster reply; thanks. I'd forgotten that you had also contributed to the discussion there. Were you aware, btw, that Dan Senor of Start-up Nation is Mitt's press spokesman these days? Re my comment at that article's talk, using satire does seem to a fairly productive way of replying to nonsense attacks when one must respond − the Fala speech being a prototypical example, as I'm sure you're aware. I struggle as much as anyone does, though, to avoid taking attacks personally. Replied back re the sock, too.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"really bad overturn accident"...excellent. Reminded me of the "slamming the wasps from the pure apple of truth" and "fact me 'til I fart" reporting in The Day Today. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad if it put you on the grin, too; I was shamefully proud of having found so fitting a video to link to on Tedder's page: The user was spamming the book, Sunset Strip Diaries all over the place, as you know, and that book is about a woman who might have walked right out of the video... I love the anchorwoman's wholly convincing, business-like demeanor, with her pitch-perfect overtone of conviviality, "Be careful out there, and don't f#ck any of those sluts." Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest obvious sock

Hi, Sean. Noticed your comment on Dlv999's talk about our new sock, Top of the Tower (talk · contribs). You suspected NoCal. I don't know what SPI will and won't accept re filings about suspected socks of our infamous friends like NoCal and the handful of other prolific puppetmasters (pp's, shall we call them?) in the topic area. Would it work if I were to just file an SPI saying, essentially, "Seems like NoCal to me; can you please check?" He is a sock, obviously, and I know checkusers look for all matches, not only ones you name as the suspected puppet master. So is it worthwhile, while his many edits can still be easily reverted, ie before subsequent edits make "undo" or "rollback" impossible? Good on AnkhMorpork, btw, for calling him out on his talk, also. --OhioStandard (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's probably worth filing a report because it looks like the editor is going to continue using the account. Apart from being too lazy and busy with other stuff, I object to having to waste the resources of a charity to have to deal with this kind of thing... An alternative I suppose is just to contact a checkuser directly (e.g. Tnxman307). I do that sometimes for repeat offenders. Yes, AnkhMorpork did a good thing but his karma account is still in the red. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you groupies. Recognise. Aspire. Emulate.Ankh.Morpork 17:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
"Of course you recognise me. I am your inspiration, your role model, your saviour, your leader, your best friend, the one you aspire to emulate, the one whose favour makes you glow." - "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" ISBN 978-8023833843.
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DRN discussion

At the risk of taking a thread to do with Palestine off topic, which I think serves no-ones interests, I thought I'd bring the more general discussion about consistency here. If there is inconsistency, it should be addressed. I think that for the SADR most countries that recognised it did so recognising the whole WS, true, but I don't see how that affects whether the SADR is a state or not (although in this case recognitions are quite fuzzy, I've seen very little to show that many of the countries that once recognised it still care one way or the other). If one says "It isn't just the free zone, it's Western Sahara", one could also say "It isn't just the south, it's Cyprus" for all the countries who have recognised Cyprus, which doesn't control about a third of its claimed territory. Does this make Cyprus not a sovereign state? Perhaps it does, but that's just one opinion. Palestine is actually more difficult than the SADR, as they have little actual control, and what they have is regulated by Israel. The SADR at least controls some territory, even if it is just a swathe of desert. CMD (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very fuzzy, I'm sure nothing I can say will make it less so, and whatever happens at DRN someone will be unhappy about it. I guess many supporters of Israel would probably argue that the Gaza Strip and Area A are under Palestinian control, but only when it is convenient to use that argument. Call me cynical. I think discussing whether something is a sovereign state is useful for building content, partly because these kind of discussions often involve discovering new sources, but if the parties involved are using different inclusion criteria or the inclusion criteria aren't based on simple tests, it's a bit of a lost cause. What matters most for me is that the information about the sovereignty of SADR, Palestine etc is somewhere and readers can find it in the lists where they might reasonably expect to find it. I don't mind where it is, whether it's included in those lists or elsewhere as long as it's easy to find and it complies with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, most of those Sovereign state by X lists are based around the principles on the main List of sovereign states page. List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion lists two tests for inclusion, "(a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory or (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state." Information about each case is included in the extent of each article, which hopefully gives the readers details for why things are included, as well as point to more detailed articles on the subject. I've never encountered the "your source says it's an independent state, not a sovereign state type of argument before though. I've never even given it a second thought as to whether the two were synonymous, it's always seemed that anything that uses "state" (besides using it for US/Australian/etc. federal type states) is shorthanding the technical term "sovereign state". I've never encountered a third definition of "state", and I'd bet that any academic paper that uses one will define the term themselves at the beginning. I've seen qualifiers added though, like "independent" and "breakaway", which all add their own implicit connotations to the term. Wishful thoughts aside, do those criteria sound to you like "simple tests", and is there any better way to present the information than in the extents? CMD (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sufferings

I'm glad it's not just me who suffers the unwanted attention of the small but dedicated band of 'pro'-Israel editors! I figured they're angling for a perma-ban, so I'm learning to remain calm when dealing with them. Don't reply to this, other than to object to it, since I don't want to give them ammunition. They seem to be able to fashion a big deal out of anything.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear where my sufferings stand in the grand scheme of things...

"I want the Germans to know where the money they gave Israel went," he said angrily. "I want the Germans to know that Israel took the money we should have received. I want them to answer one question: Where did our money go?"
http://www.haaretz.com/news/survivors-protest-makes-foreign-journalists-gasp-security-vanish-1.226913

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-state-funding-of-holocaust-victims-foundation-drops-for-third-year-1.424483
http://www.timesofisrael.com/survivors-stipends-slashed-before-holocaust-remembrance-day/

~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is evidence of editors not complying with policy please report it to the appropriate noticeboard and let the admins deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).