User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Walid Shoebat

I am inviting you to the talk page for a discussion. Thereandnot (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look when I get a chance. I'm a bit busy so it may not be until tomorrow. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Russell Tribunal

do not revert someone's post without disucssion. you are breaking Wikipedia rules. You have been warned.72.74.168.119 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't exploit a charity for your own ends by adding irrelevant personal commentary like this. Also, read WP:TALK and comply with it. It's easy to understand. In a nutshell it means no one cares what you think about the real world so don't waste your time writing it on an article discussion page. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are the rules, the issue has been discussed on the talk pages. You have been warned.72.74.168.119 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I stomped on you...

Hi Sean, sorry I stomped on you here, edit conflict! Zad68 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mission statement

There is now a mission statement due to confusion I was hearing from potential "members". Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

New ant task force

Hello Sean.hoyland! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles, including the FA Ant. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). This list of ant-related open access may prove useful for expanding stubs and DYKs. If you're interested in copy editing future GA/FA nomination, please add your username including a short comment like "copy editing" in the Participants list and someone will {{ping}} you when needed. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Murdered pregnant women

Hello,

If you read the related article it will be clear that this cat is for women who are murdered in relation to domestic violence or by an intimate partner. It's not meant for those who were murdered by random people and who happened to be pregnant. Please read again and revert your oversight. Thank you. Mootros (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I already read the article before I restored the category for the reasons provided in my edit summary 'she was murdered, she was pregnant and the linked article says "often resulting from domestic violence" not always.' In other words, I didn't and still don't find an argument based on an absence of information about murdered pregnant women who were not victims of domestic violence very persuasive given that categorization is objectively valid. What I didn't do is look at Category talk:Murdered pregnant women where the inclusion criteria has been discussed, is as you say, and appears to have consensus. Roscelese has taken care of the revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Intimate partner" (or possibly acquaintance) is really the key word. I have to admit that the article might need some attention to better draw this out. Mootros (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a better name for the category. Unfortunately due to a lack of imagination I can't think of one. Maybe there's a legalistic term for this crime... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:State of Palestine

According to the definition of "sovereign state" given in Wikipedia:

A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.

"Palestine" certainly does not qualify, and for one to make the claim that it does, the burden of proof is on them. lanlan_lanwan —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep this in one place, on the article talk page. Your last edit erased information there. New sections go at the bottom of the page. I'll fix it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Swami nithyananda

Hi. Thank you so much for your edits and effort on the wiki page Swami Nithyananda. I will also restore the original controversies section that was deleted by nithyananda's PR people. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and I'll be trying to do more when I have time. There certainly appeared to be significant mismatch between how the Wikipedia article presents him and how reliable sources present him. For example, we say still say "spiritual master, mystic" using Wikipedia's narrative voice whereas mainstream Indian sources tend to say something like "self styled godman". The article probably deserves an award for being one of the worst examples of editors not complying with all sorts of policies. Thanks for bringing it to the community's attention at the BLP noticeboard. I expect the promotional editing will continue but I'll try to keep an eye on it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for watchlisting it. Yeah :) , There is a lot at stake for Nithyananda people. They are giving it their best shot to make sure he remains a "god". They had been kind of running a cult till the controversy broke out in 2010. I will also change the "mystic" to "self-styled godman" providing the right references.. Thank you for the guidance and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, per WP:NPOV it's probably better to provide all the narratives, how he describes himself (+how his supporters describe him) and how he's described by independent reliable sources so that readers can get a proper overview. Phrasing like 'variously described as "x", "y", "z"' with the appropriate sources cited might be a better approach. There seems to be fairly wide variety of descriptions e.g. the BBC say "controversial Indian guru"[1]. Either way, Nithyananda's version of the truth has to be presented as his version not the encyclopedia's. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, you mention "there is a lot at stake". One of the things that strikes me as being absent from the article is the commercial aspects of his activities/organizations. I haven't looked for reliable sources that provide information about this. Maybe you have seen something useful somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Baba's and mystic's in India work in weird ways. They need good publicity and image to attract people. The mechanics of how these godmen make money is simple, They build an image projecting themselves as god, And hordes of followers donate millions of $ worth land to these self-styled godman. Nithyananda was not the first of these, nor will he be the last..Wikipedia is an international website with exposure to US, and europe, So anyone who is seeking "Oriental Mysticism" might take a look at wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia's page on nithyananda was built in such a way he was projected as a living god. They get more followers and more $$$ this way. If you google nithyananda's name, Wikipedia is amongst the top links shown. So its a very lucrative and almost free publicity for them. Also, Indians in particular don't understand how wikipedia works, They have a tendency to believe anything published on wikipedia as truth, So they are easily brainwashed.

This article contains some financial information. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And this article will give little insight on how all these so called godmen work..

http://www.darjeelingtimes.com/main-news/general/4451-richie-rich-nirmal-baba-under-scanner.html The url is not about nithyananda, but it just tells how these godmen use propaganda for their own profits. For them wikipedia is another tool for propaganda. propaganda = brainwash, brainwashed people go to these godmen and offer their assets in return to solve their problems!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I wonder if Sanal Edamaruku or anyone from the Indian Rationalists Association has had anything to say about Nithyananda that has been published by secondary sources. That would be useful for balance. This interview with Nithyananda looks useful as a source for his version of things. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it within wikipedia's rules to remove this statement? Most of the content in biography section have no reliable sources.

Nithyananda claims to remember his birth: "It was neither dark nor light-filled; an indeterminate color covered planet Earth. Suddenly a bright and brilliant light appeared from a region, which I now see as Southern India. I entered into that light in the form of a brilliant meteor. The very next sight that I perceived with my inner eye was Arunachala, and I knew that I had assumed the body once more; I had entered the womb of my mother. It was a conscious birth. I entered into the body at 11:45 pm. I took a muhurta, which is a period of about 45 minutes in the Hindu system of time measurement, to settle into the body."

The source provided for the above statement comes from a self-published book, WP:SPS says Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's within wikipedia's rules to remove the statement but I think it's also within the rules for it to remain, as long as it's clear that it's his version of events. It's a good example of something that should probably be discussed on the article's talk page or perhaps the BLP noticeboard would be a better place. If you look at Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source and WP:SELFPUB you can see the criteria (which are slightly inconsistent but you can get the general idea). The important thing to note is that both of these documents are part of the core policies of the site rather than guidelines. In other words, compliance is mandatory. Nithyananda's version is certainly seems very self-serving and it's a highly exceptional claim but personally, I'm okay with it staying in the article because it's part of his creation story/myth and helps readers to understand Nithyananda's narrative. I think religions, religious figures, conspiracy theorists etc etc always make self-serving exceptional claims and we leave those in the article's so that readers can understand the subject.

Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says

• Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. *Such material may be used as a source only if:
• 1 it is not unduly self-serving;
• 2 it does not involve claims about third parties;
• 3 it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• 4 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources.

WP:SELFPUB says

• Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
• 1 the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• 2 it does not involve claims about third parties;
• 3 it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• 4 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources.
• This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you so much for the detailed reply.I agree with your view that conspiracy theorists, godmen etc are likely to make self-serving claims. I will try and trim some content from the article based on the rules you have provided.. And thanks for providing the link to nithyananda's financial activity. was a nice read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There's this one too. Both are, I think, from 2010 although it doesn't say that on the reports. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a spiritual rivalry going on between sri sri ravishankar and nithyananda..Here are a few articles i have found so far...http://www.deccanherald.com/content/64599/ipl-2012.html http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/jul/06/slide-show-1-an-interview-with-sri-sri-ravishankar.htm#3 http://zeenews.india.com/news/uttar-pradesh/sri-sri-ravishankar-disapproves-of-whips-by-political-parties_829490.html

Yes, I stumbled across something about that elsewhere. Thanks for the links. I guess the article should eventually include his take on what's behind all the media and police attention he's getting. For example, in an interview[2] he said "I feel that a part of it is Christian conspiracy. Perhaps because I am spreading Hinduism too fast and I am one of the most influential gurus in the world and I was identified as one of the hundred most influential spiritual leaders in the world." Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide me a link re: wikipedia's rules regarding structure of biographies..? I do not understand why controversies are pushed to last paragraph of the article..Thanks.

Lookinhotbra (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The basic structure an article is covered by the manual of style (MOS), Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout. An MOS for biographies is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. But I guess that isn't what you are asking about. There aren't really any rules about the internal structure of articles, although have a look at WP:STRUCTURE, which is part of the core policy on neutrality, WP:NPOV. The only reason I moved the controversy section down was so that the "factual"-ish information about his organization/operations could be grouped together, followed by a reception/controversies or whatever section. Ideally, the controversies should be integrated into the body of the article in the relevant sections e.g. about the ashram. That's what I tried to do by creating the eN Education section here and moving the content out of the controversies section into a section about Nithyananda Gurukul. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I had been trying to understand why substantial controversies were pushed to last para in all biographies i have seen on wikipedia..Examples : Sathya Sai Baba. I have got no objections to merging the articles with relevant topics..Thank you for the indepth reply and thanks for providing links to relevant wikipedia policies. much appreciated..Sincerely, Lookinhotbra (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I should add a couple of points. One is WP:LEAD, "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." At the moment the article doesn't comply with that, but the article is being cleaned up so I'm not really bothered for the time being. But eventually the lead has to summarize the article contents and it will have to include a brief summary of the controversies. There is zero chance that anyone can legitimately claim that that be excluded from the lead given the massive amount of coverage by reliable sources. The second thing is that there will no doubt be objections to the size of the Controversy section. Maybe there already have been, I haven't looked. Integrating the content into the body of the article rather than having a separate section helps, but people often, mistakenly in my view, try to claim that sections like that are too big by comparing it to other sections of the article. That isn't a valid argument in my view because WP:DUE weight is measured with reference to what reliable sources have published about a subject, not with reference to what Wikipedia editors happen to have written about a subject at a given point in an article's history. If half the reliably published material is about controversies, there's nothing wrong with half of the article being about controversies. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will try and help you in anyway i can. There have been a couple of discussions about controversy section being disproportionately large in the talk section of Swami Nithyananda. The answer you posted was very informative, I will also pass on this info to other users who are editing sai baba's article. Thanks. Sincerely, Lookinhotbra (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lookinhotbra

Courtesy of Acnaren (talk · contribs). Closed of course almost immediately. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying not to think about the various promotional SPA's at the Swami Nithyananda article just yet or even discuss anything at all with them until the article is in a better shape. I'm not sure of the scope of the problem or the history of disruption there. It easy to be distracted by these kind of editors. C'est la vie. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry this SPI was filed by mistake because such attacks on the page are frequent. Will discuss the problems with the current changes made by lookinhotbra in the prev section. Acnaren (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

When you "discuss the problems with the current changes" make sure your points are consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and supported by evidence from reliable sources or editors are at liberty to ignore them. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoa

Umadbro? Absolutely no need to get that attitude with me. Go ahead and report me I don't care what the relationship between "palestine" a non-existent place and Israel and real place is. There is no real or legal location recognized as Palestine or the Palestinian states; there's just Israel.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason you should care is that this is an encyclopedia, not a ship of fools. Your edit will inevitably be reverted in due course. And as a bonus you now have me to watch over you like an angel. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine bro, I don't do stupid things; just bold things. Having and angry anti-semite following me doesn't bother me lol. You're not the first--Jacksoncw (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no emotion and no anti-semitism here. You did another stupid thing by saying those things. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RSN: Skull Tower

Can I please get your opinion on the reliability and appropriateness of the sources originally presented at the RSN Skull Tower discussion? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

2006 Lebanon War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2006 Lebanon War/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Sock but of whom ?

Hi Sean,

who is he the sock of according to you ? And what to do against these ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Have a look through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive#08_October_2013. I added another account, Stuck in SD with Yaming, to that report but it wasn't processed by the clerks. Kipa_Aduma, Esq is showing the same behavioral characteristics as those socks, following specific editors, including you. It's typical of NoCal. The evidence related to the Stuck in SD with Yaming account should probably be re-submitted as a new report and Kipa_Aduma, Esq added to it. Either that or contact a checkuser like Elockid directly and ask them to look into it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

about Falun Gong's page

Hello

I'm not sure it's the best way to contact you,nor if I'ù talking to the right person, cos I'm a beginner on wikipedia. I'm french and actually try to edit some content on the Falun Gong's page. I found the english page very interesting, so I directly translate part of this page to the French Falun Gong's page. Some wikipedia editors are... kind of angry, talks about controversial point of view, and so on? I don't know what to answer, for I think the research made by people on the english page are quite serious and I agree on them. But these french editors points out that some controversial are still existing on the english page, I don't really see what they are talk about. These are the same editors that spread rumours coming from the CCP, I don't know what to answer. They don't even talk about the content or try to reformulate, they are just kind of angry and always blame on cotroversial, or "unappropriate form to encyclopedia". As I'm almost blocked on wikipedia, I'd like to have the point of view of english writter on Falun Gong page, and about the controversial than existing on the english version. Do you know someone that can help me?

Thanks.

Davives

Hi, well, one difference may be that on English Wikipedia, all articles related to Falun Gong are covered by discretionary sanctions, which you can read about here. Many editors have been sanctioned in one way or another because the topic area has a long history of being used as a battleground. I don't edit in the Falun Gong topic area very much so I'm probably not the best person to ask about this. I have the pages watchlisted because they tend to attract both pro and anti-Falun Gong activists. I have no personal interest in the topic itself. I see that you wrote "je pratique effectivement le Falun Gong, et j'écris pour Epoch Times". I think in that case you are probably going to face problems both editing neutrally and convincing other editors that you are editing neutrally. Activist editing is not allowed in the Falun Gong topic area in English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I do get the impression that almost every editor working in the Falun Gong topic area has some kind of connection to the issue which I don't think is a good thing. I don't know whether the English article is controversial but it probably isn't as neutral as it could be. For example, the CCP's public relations/propaganda is described as propaganda, that is what it is. But Falun Gong's public relations/propaganda is not described as propaganda. But both parties engage in propaganda campaigns and whether the claims they make are true or false doesn't change that, it's still propaganda from an objective perspective. Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides in the dispute or giving precedent to either side's narrative, but I think it probably does in many cases largely because the editors who edit in the topic area have difficulty editing neutrally. I don't know what advice to give you other than to consider not editing topics where your personal views could compromise your editing. But if you think you can edit neutrally and not use Wikipedia to promote Falun Gong's agenda or suppress the CCP narrative, the most important thing is probably patience. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I saw that the french editors that spread the CCP propaganda promote the same point of view of the chinese propaganda on others page, like in pages about Tibet; so maybe we cannot avoid those pages to be a battleground. But I still believe we can understand on each others on wikipedia about giving the best information, I wil follow your advice and try to be patient with people. Best. Davives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davives (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "West Bank". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 16:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent FRUS – Israel and Arabs

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1977–1980, VOLUME VIII, ARAB-ISRAELI DISPUTE, JANUARY 1977–AUGUST 1978

    [Dayan said] Israel […] will not agree to remove all of its settlements in areas beyond the 1967 lines even for peace. Syria, he felt, would never make peace if Israel kept parts of Golan. […] Dayan stated that he takes the Arabs seriously when they say they are prepared to sign peace treaties with Israel. But Israel is not willing to pay the price that they are asking for peace. If he had to choose between Sharm al-Shaykh and peace, he would choose Sharm. Maybe after ten more years Israel can leave Sharm, but not before. He acknowledged that this placed Israel in an awkward position with respect to world and even US opinion. […]
    Returning to the discussion of territory, Dayan emphasized that the only issue at Sharm al-Shaykh and on Golan was security. (He later added the settlements now on Golan.) But the West Bank is different. There non-security issues count. Israel has every right to be there. Any division of the area is unacceptable. Perhaps in ten or twenty years a formula for coexistence can be found. A West Bank-Gaza state is not a solution. On Golan, Dayan again stressed that he had opposed taking the Heights, but was now reluctant to abandon the settlements there. In Dayan's view, if Israel were offered peace tied to full withdrawal, he would oppose peace.

And what has changed?

Swami Nithyananda page

Sean, The users who are editing this page are doing so with malicious intent. For instance the introduction ignores the fact that he is the Mahamandaleshwar of the oldest body of Hinduism. Abusing him calling him self styled and removing that from the introduction is plain wrong. It is not enough if a statement has references. An encyclopedia has to choose correctly. For instance in the controversy about his appointment the entire quote from a single newspaper is shown here blowing it out of proportion. Even there they quote an unknown person. This is clearly the wrong way to write a BLP. Also if you see the controversy section is reads like a police report rather than an encyclopedia with IPC sections and what not. Understand that it is easy to put cases on people. None of them are proved and they are all false. Unfortunately the matter is in court and court documents and evidence are not allowed on wikipedia!! In India cases can go on for decades. The people against Swami Nithyananda are using the media and wikipedia to wage a war. This is totally wrong. And I am sad that the admins are supporting this. Please take an objective look at the article while considering the fact that he heads the oldest chair of hinduism and has more than 10 million followers world wide. And the fact that as per Indian law - and I presume possibly in your country too - that a person is considered innocent until convicted as guilty. I know it is easy to bend the rules and write articles that appear to be factual while infact they are showing a biased point of view. I really hope wikipedia and you as an admin do not fall prey to such tactics. Acnaren (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and as far as I can see there are no admins supporting anything at that article. The article, just like hundreds of articles in Wikipedia, is exploited by people on both sides of the issues. That's just how it is unfortunately. I don't have a view on the issue you refer to because I haven't looked at it in detail, but I doubt that "godman" is a term familiar to most readers and using the word "controversial" in the unattributed narrative voice of the encyclopedia in the opening sentence is not something I support, whether it can be sourced or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please give your comments/criticism on the current version of the article? Thanks.

Lokayata91 (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Gila AE discussion

Hey. I am going to branch some discussion out here, we can bring it on the AE page if you want or it seems necessary.

You discussed Sue's notes somewhat out of context, but ignoring that for the moment, your closing line was:

"But it seems to me that AE is not able to do that because there is a belief that sustained biased editing does not constitute a threat to neutral, reliable information."

I don't think anyone is arguing that. My argument is that everyone is biased; some of us are aware and attempt not to let it bias our editing, some of us successfully; some are aware but less diligent; some aren't even aware; some are aware and seek to evolve or push opinion through edits here.

The first few categories there - through less diligent - are clearly normal and acceptable. I think not aware of own biases is normal but regrettable. Aware and seeking to evolve or push opinion via edits here is still normal, problematic, but not necessarily actionable.

I think about half to two thirds of the commentators on this AE case fit into that last category. The question isn't is this regrettable, but is it more damaging than tolerable.

As I said, I see a spectrum of possible categories here, from "tight calls with two competing normal practices options have a noticable tendency to align with person's individual bias/opinion", to "small percentage of edits are outside our normal best practices" to "large number of edits are outside our normal best practices" to "Just pushing an agenda, no attempt to conform to Wikipedia standards".

I'd say the latter category is what WP:BATTLE is for. I think the "large number of edits are outside..." is WP:SOAP. Somewhere in the "small percentage" is possibly disruptive, or mild soap, or the sort of thing an Arbcom sanctioned editor might be under stricter scrutiny over.

I think the first category, of "tight calls tend to align", is something we generally need to acknowledge happens and allow eventualism to even out. Even for heightened scrutiny, it's not appropriate to topic ban or otherwise sanction over this. That's the default case we have to assume is going to happen with known opinionated editors when we call that out but fail to permanently topic ban them.

If we have zero tolerance here, I will have to topic ban a bunch of people here not just Gila, as I said here...

I don't think that's what the community wants.

We need to have defenses when people start pushing agendas harder, particularly when it's a arbcom case topic area, and particularly where it's a discretionary sanctions area, and particularly with editors with a history of going farther. But we also have to have enough grey area not to permanently topic ban everyone who shows a visible bias.

Thanks... I am happy to talk this out here, or take this back onto the AE page and talk it out there, if you like. I understand there are a lot of divergent opinions on this topic.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. It's a difficult issue. I don't have time to respond in detail today but for interest, either way, I don't think the evidence presented is sufficient to merit a topic ban in Gila's case. In fact, I don't think topic bans are a useful way of dealing with editors like Gila. I suspect that the number of edits that fall outside normal best practices may not very large no matter whether they are counted in absolute or relative terms. I might be wrong about that but I think you need a lot of data to demonstrate a long term pattern that adds up to something significant. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikpedia Notice

You have been reported for your behavior There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicKirin11 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your question at WP:AN3

In response to your comment here: The current wording of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." In my opinion, this establishes a per-article 1RR restriction that applies to everyone, whether or not they are banned, and on all material in the article. In addition, anyone who is banned cannot edit I/P-related material at all, though they should be able to edit non-I/P material even in an article which has the ARBPIA banner. Unless there is some special wording in their ban that rules it out. In my opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is certainly what the template indicates. I'm not convinced that was it's intent though in cases like this because I'm not sure cases like this were envisaged when the template was written. It was written for ARBPIA articles to address edit warring in ARBPIA. I could be misremembering. Its presence has spread in article space over time crossing the fuzzy border between articles that are clearly within scope of ARBPIA and articles that are about something else but contain various amounts of material that the person who adds the template regards as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in some sense. I don't remember a case where someone was sanctioned for breaking 1RR by editing content unrelated to ARBPIA in an article with an ARBPIA template. I could easily have not noticed though. Having said all that, 1RR has been quite effective in ARBPIA and if it were up to me, it would apply everywhere and WP:BRD would be policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean 1RR everywhere? That would create a lot more business for the 3RR noticeboard, which would become the 1RR noticeboard :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Style

Hi Sean

I see no reason to doubt your repeated assertion that this disruptive editor is a sock of Lutrinae. But I am not familiar enough with the puppeteer to take this further. Could you submit an SPI, so that this sock can be blocked and the disruption curtailed? RolandR (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point filing an SPI to be honest and the evidence would need to be dealt with off-wiki. I'm not sure the cost vs benefit is right yet. They'll come straight back as they've done many times before. Their disruption was pretty low level and manageable over the past weeks and months but they are definitely becoming more disruptive. I still think it's manageable but I don't think people should waste time discussing content issues. What I would like to happen is for them to stop, having realized that deception is wrong and pointless, and then stay stopped or else the futile SPI->block cycle will just keep repeating. The problem seems to be that they don't make decisions the same way the vast majority of people do. They can't see (or just don't care about) the difference between what is allowed here and what isn't when the rules apply to their behavior. There's a word for that. So, I'm trying various things to see what happens. If it doesn't work, which is likely, I'll contact an admin involved in the previous cases but I have thousands of things I would rather spend my time on. You too probably. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

610 Office

I've reverted you on 610 Office. If you refer to the talk page discussion here[3], you'll see that 'persecution' is commonly used by reliable sources, and is more precise and descriptive than "operations." Also, the office was established to coordinate and direct the suppression of Falun Gong exclusively. Its mandate was expanded several years later to include other spiritual and qigong groups, and that fact is noted a little bit later in the introduction. TheBlueCanoe 18:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that but I think the source sampling and analysis are probably flawed resulting in a statement that uses a non-neutral voice, a statement that in my view does not maximize policy compliance. Given the requirements of NPOV, the statement in its current form looks like an inappropriate use of the voice of the encyclopedia to me. It looks like advocacy given that it samples advocacy sources and picks a particular construction, one of many, and excludes the stated function according to the CCP's narrative. I'll have a look through those sources and others and respond on the article talk page when I get a chance. For interest, it is the kind of statement that would not survive in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, another topic area with conflicting points of view and source diversity. It's like saying "for the purpose of...collective punishment of Palestinians" in the unattributed voice of the encyclopedia, a statement for which countless Amnesty, HRW, UN, scholarly, media etc sources could be found or "for the purpose of...delegitimizing the State of Israel" in the unattributed voice of the encyclopedia, another POV that is widespread and easily sourceable. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

semi-protection

I semi-protected this page for a week to slow the attacks down. Let me know if you'd like it reversed or extended. Zero^talk 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really mind the attacks. My neighbor has a small yappy dog so I'm used to this kind of noise. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Apis florea nest thailand.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Apis florea nest thailand edge view.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Striving

To exert much effort or energy; endeavor. I guess you have failed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Provide specific evidence of failure to comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about violation, rather an honor to present knighthood regalities. Editors who honestly believe in their neutrality, just fool themselves. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is based on a flawed assumption that people share human attributes to various degrees that would influence their neutrality in ARBPIA. The assumption, although usually true, is wrong in some cases. It's like incorrectly assuming that because someone is a human being they can experience empathy or they care about the difference between right and wrong. Some editors will be capable of neutrality within specific domains. But it isn't even about neutrality, it's about the degree to which someone can follow rules, whether they have the common sense to stay away from topics where they are likely to make bad decisions and crucially whether their objective is the same as the Wikimedia foundation's. I may be a fool in many ways but what I believe is not present in my content edits. There's none of me in my ARBPIA edits. It's just an implementation of the rules based on what I have understood from policy/guidelines and reliable sources. For the purposes of Wikipedia content, I don't have any beliefs other than the belief that a rules based smart-bot would make the same decision and therefore the same edit/revert. That doesn't mean I will get it right of course, but the approach I try to use is not very error prone and it's the only thing that other editors need to understand about why I make any given edit/revert, other than perhaps my utter contempt for stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry and drone-like behavior whatever the cause, nationalism, religion etc, attributes which are oddly over-represented in ARBPIA. Any other imagined reason or motive assigned to an edit I make will always be wrong and usually comically off target. I enjoy editing in ARBPIA because it encapsulates many of the worst aspects of human behavior in microcosm. For reasons that I've never fully grasped, it attracts so many truly appalling people who are willfully blind to evidence, believe very stupid and bigoted things and use deceptive and dishonest methods without hesitation. I find it fascinating. In my real everyday world, everyone I know is smart, unprejudiced, impeccably honest, kind, tolerant and worldly-wise. Much of the time ARBPIA is like having free online access to data from a human behavior laboratory involved in testing and validating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is rather general and apply to any area of Wiki editing or human behavior. I'm glad that your friends and you, you've cracked the code. Still when I hear '¡No pasarán!', though I sympathize with the cry, it sounds like a partisan buzz. A doubt that we're dealing with humans after all, creeps in. My neighbor's kid always self-identified as R2D2 and dresses appropriately, but maybe he is not a robot? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess taking beliefs about self, others and the world so seriously is a defining characteristic of being human. I'm not able to do that anymore having adopted a happy nihilistic cynicism long ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many arbitrated spectacular conflicts. Frankly I'm trying not to be cynical. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you an administrator?

Are you an administrator? I don't see anything on your user page about that. If not, you probably should not be issuing official looking "Warnings" to users. Wikieditorpro (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You won't be getting anymore warnings from me. You only get one. If you harass an editor like that again you will be reported and almost certainly blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Irony at BLPN

Evidently isn't so easy to notice. Anyway, good point, well made.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'll ever understand why so many people seem to think it's okay to impose models of identity on other people without their say so. It's puzzling...actually I think it's foolish and wrong, but I guess it's the foundation of so much comedy so at least it's a gift that keeps giving. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead Sea

Since when the Dead Sea is in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt?!?!?!. You can even check on the map...--Friends147 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are the basin countries of the Dead Sea. See The Dead Sea: The Lake and Its Setting, page 3 , Oxford University Press or New Frontiers in Dead Sea Paleoenvironmental Research, page v, Geological Society of America, for example. You need to self-revert your edit and restore the correct information. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've restored it. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is not a personally issue... I read your links and you proved that you were right so i would not change it again. --Friends147 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sodastream

Hi, I agree with your position on restoring the balance at this page. Tkuvho (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Haaretz

A dispute resolution resolution request has been filed regarding an issue you have been involved with. Dlv999 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I probably won't participate unless something catches my eye. I try not to let editors with their kind of evidently agenda driven and odd editing behavior influence my editing in WP:ARBPIA too much. They seem to be able to ignore evidence and make decisions in ways that I can't understand, so it seems pointless trying to work with them to make content decisions. Better to invest the time in fixing any damage they cause. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection

Just realised I'd forgotten to tell you that I've semi-protected your talk page for a week. I was informed that there was a lot of IP nonsense going on, and as it didn't seem to be stopping, I took action. If you don't want it (or if it starts again later...), just let me know. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If leaving my talk page unprotected would keep these IPs away from the articles I'd rather keep it unprotected, but it seems they like to attack people and content, so let's leave it protected for now. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I've happened to stumble across a number of pages that you take part in some way that are in some way connected to the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. I have come into the opinion after seeing your actions that as an editor you remain completely neutral in your editing. My position is the articles should have all relevant data. It should be reliable sourced. It shouldn't be negatively effected by propaganda and those that back it. Whether it's Israeli or Palestinian propagandists.

What I would like to do is start a collaboration group ala WP:TEAMWORK to bring people together to improve all related articles associated with this issue. A group to push for neutrality and educate others about WP:ARBPIA and anything else that is relevant basically.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:IPCOLL ? It's probably close to what you have in mind and it's woefully under used. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very close and I offer you my humblest thanksSerialjoepsycho (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Israel". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Precision123 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation

Your edit summary Undid revision 595294184 by Tkuvho (talk) but it was already removed and a talk page section was opened is a misrepresentation of the sequence of events. It is not correct that the material was removed and then a talk page section opened concerning this issue. In fact, there is an old section on an unrelated issue that contains a comment by User:Ronz opposing the inclusion of this material. Note that the material you removed has been there for over a week with the consensus of the active editors. Several tendentious editors have already been reported and so will you if you continue misrepresenting other editors' actions. Tkuvho (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My misrepresentation ? What a utterly stupid thing to say. I am used to people coming to my page and talking shit but if you think 11 February 2014 is old there is nothing I can do for you. I am not tendentious editor but I am someone that you shouldn't threaten if you would like to continue editing in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you apologize for your obscene language. Tkuvho (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"It is not correct that the material was removed". What the fuck was this edit by Ronz on 2014-02-12T16:41:13 then ? Here is a little tip for you. Do not come to my page, talk shit, make threats and expect politeness. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mount Hermon

Just noticed the continual edit warring and protected for a week, but do you have any clue as to where this is coming from? The latest was a brand new account's only edit. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No, sorry, I don't have a clue where it's coming from. The puzzling effectiveness of socialization ? Doesn't narrow it down much. Unfortunately I see many edits like these everyday in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I appreciate all the work you're doing. You seem to be everywhere. Keep up the constructive edits, Pass a Method talk 02:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To quote my favorite vandal CrustyPores = LustyRoars, "spreading the truth, kicking ass and taking names. Look for me wherever there is a troll that needs to be shanked or an article which needs to be fixed. I will be there, whispering on the wind." If only all vandals were as entertaining as him. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For what ever reason I read that quote and hear: The Ghost of Tom Joad (song)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Civilian Casualty Ratio

Sean, I'd just like to ask for clarification of the ratio edit that you reverted on Civilian casualty ratio. It doesn't seem to make sense that 182% of the casualties were civilians, which is the way most lay readers of Wikipedia will understand it. It does make sense to express this as "67% of the casualties were civilians". Note that 2:1 is expressed as 67% under the WWII section. The article should be consistent and clear enough for a non-mathematician to understand. Cmacauley (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I understand why you made that change now. I agree that it is far clearer for the reader to see statements of the form "67% of the casualties were civilians" or things like "The civilian to combatant fatality rate in World War II lies somewhere between 3:2 and 2:1, or from 60% to 67% of the total number of casualties were civilians". But I think the word ratio should be used instead of rate. Rate is the wrong word. Yes, there really is no limit to my pedantry. Or maybe rate is the right word in this specific context. I don't know actually. Perhaps you do. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of rate in this context is that it is a calculation of the casualties sustained within a given time period, as in annual casualty rate. I agree with you that ratio is the correct term here, as we are comparing combatant casualties to noncombatant casualties. This article is really kind of a mess, but cleanup will require some serious research into the statistics, which is more than I have time to do at present. I'd like to add a section on civilian casualties in Afghanistan but the amount of information on this subject is massive.Cmacauley (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice Biography

File:Honest warrior Karelian front.gif	Honest Man
	Continue to search for more knowledge. Summichum (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	trying to amicable resolve Summichum (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. That was nice of you. Enjoy editing Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks, Summichum (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I love kittens <:3

Summichum (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Love

	Love
	A message of love Summichum (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael DeForge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marc Bell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Willie Manning

I feel that this article remains inaccurate and contentious, and that a large proportion of it should be removed. Smallnslow (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I have three concerns about possible BLP violations in this article: 1)Misquotation from a source with the result that the meaning is altered (‘prosecutors said’ deleted from source cited at 6) 2) Use of a suspect source (cited at 1, 9, 13 and 16). The extreme, unbalanced view of this source towards the subject (presumably at editorial level) makes it an unreliable source for this article. 3) Use of court documents as sources (cited at 5, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27) in conflict with BLP policy ‘Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.’Smallnslow (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)