Jump to content

User talk:RolandR/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Shmuley Boteach

Saw your comment on Shmuley Boteach. Can you visit Rabbi Pinto there has been many discussions there and his cronies have manipulated and whitewashed a ton of info which belongs. Jonathangluck (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I know nothing about him, but have seen that one editor has been obsessively forum-shopping for months in an attempt to control the content of this article. RolandR (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

note

Hi, I removed what I felt was a personal attack and left the user a warning, if you feel to report it I would fully understand. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior has been brought up as well (by me) at a thread on ANI that was originally about this reverted personal attack. It's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alexandre8. Based on a too-quick scan of this page, I'd just assumed that this section was notifying you about it, sorry for the delay. Short version: please don't follow Alexandre8 around anymore and correct their edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Sock report on Baba

Hi, RolandR. I have combined our two posts at WP:SPI into one to kind of tidy things up. We posted within a minute of each other; I am surprised we did not get and edit conflict. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so am I. Your repoort was not there when I started mine, but was there when I saved. They are both date-stamped the same time. There must have been some unusual glitch which caused this. The fact that we independently submitted these at thje same time strengthens the prima-facie case here. I see that you removed the Check User request when you merged the reports -- can it be re-added? I don't know how. RolandR (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I thought it was still there. I will try to fix this. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now all is in order. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

RefToolbar

Hello. See my reply at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0#Problem with NoScript.3F. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

Since Juliano Mer-Khamis is under a 1RR, it seems you might be blocked as well per your own report. Are you claiming BLP or any other justification that would exempt your reverts under WP:3RR#Exceptions? EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't claim BLP, as tragically Juliano has just been murdered. I have edited this article previously, and was concerned that his murder dragged out of the woodwork characters keen to malign him, or to impose their own misreadings of his history. Some (probably through ignorance rather than malice) removed his description as a Jew; others (for reasons unknown) removed his description as a Palestinian. He was already (since January) described accurately as an Israeli Palestinian. One editor, who has been edit-warring with multiple editors over several articles, and who has already been blocked twice this week for disruptive editing, insisted on removing this description. In the course of attempting to maintain balance in this sensitive article on a person assassinated for political reasons, I quite simply forgot that it should be subject to 1RR. I'm sorry, I should have remembered. In mitigation, I would argue that my edits have not been disruptive; that I have contributed to the discussion on the talk page; that as an existing editor on the page I had a genuine and legitimate pre-existing interest in the subject; and that I was motivated by a sincere desire both to prevent attacks on this recently-deceased person and to maintain a good-quality article. I do not believe that blocking me over this is necessary in order to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I have blocked your account for 48 hours for violation of WP:ARBPIA. I might point out that you have actually violated 3RR on that page with this edit [1]. I don't like having blocked you, but IMHO there has been too much edit warring on your behalf, so I don't find it entirely unjustified. You are of course perfectly well within your right to request review of the block; if an administrator disagrees, that administrator does not need my consent to undo your block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request that I be unblocked, for the reasons explained above. I didn't consider the edit noted by Magog above to be a revert, I thought it was a perfectly uncontentious housekeeping edit in line with WP:LEADCITE. Please note that the blocking admin has written that their consent is not needed for undoing the block. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think it's awfully unfortunate that you have been blocked but I ultimately agree with the blocking admin's logic. Are you able to clearly indicate that you understand what you did wrong? Can you promise not to do it again? If you could do those things, I think an unblock request might be more successful. Meantime I am declining, sorry. John (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, I thought that I made it clear that I acted in error, and that I would not act similarly in the future. My explanation was an attempt at an explanation, rather than a justification, of my actions. I accept that I breached the rules of Wikipedia and that I should not have done so; and I undertake to be more careful to adhere in future to the letter of the rules of Wikipedia, even when my understanding of the spirit of these rules might tempt me to act otherwise. RolandR (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you. FYI: It might be wise to always adhere to 1RR in the first place, no matter if you think you are aware that the article is on 1RR or not and if you think you are correct or not. Even if consensus takes 12 or 24 hours to established, that is the extent for how long the article will be "wrong". After that, there will always be a straightforward justification for any reversion back to a prior state—consensus. I really ought to take my own advice too :) NW (Talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take account of your warning. RolandR (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

UAA report

I now see that you're very autoconfirmed. I was able to submit a UAA report for User:Wikivndlism1 using Twinkle, as that's clearly a disruptive name. I'm not sure why you couldn't submit one yourself. --NellieBly (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Look again; your report has also been deleted by the bot! RolandR (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Argh! I thought it would be OK because the bot made other changes and left mine alone! That dastardly devil! --NellieBly (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Roger Scruton

Hi Roland, I've opened an RfC to ask for a neutrality check of Roger Scruton, and to ask whether the POV tag should remain. One of the issues continues to be whether the article makes too much of his having been a consultant for a tobacco company, which is an issue you commented on last year at the BLP noticeboard. If you have time to give your views on any of the issues at the RfC, even if only that one, that would be much appreciated. The RfC is here and the section about tobacco is here. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism

Hi Roland. Just thought I'd drop you a note to say that the removal was indeed accidental, by one of my mentees. I have no issue with you agreeing with the removal and your revert of my edit, but I just thought I'd give you a little context. WormTT · (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't see how someone can "accidentally" revert an edit, while describing it as "good faith". Do you mean that it was mistaken, rather than accidental? In that case, I would disagree; this, or similar, content has been posted several times, on various pages, by a trolling editor who seems to be trying to use Wikipedia in an attempt to establish a neologism as a recognised term. As such, the edit was indeed correctly reverted, and that is why I too removed it. RolandR (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
My mentee believed it had been added to the article space, rather than the talk space, so reverted saying it was a good faith edit. I'd say that's accidental, not mistaken. He's fairly new to Twinkle and made the revert in a series of over zealous edits. He's since apologised to the IP, who said they were unable to make the edit due to page protection. The edit seemed like a good faith response to the question on the page, so I readded the edit. However, I'm not familiar with the subject area, nor any editors motives in the area, so as I say I have no issue with your removal. WormTT · (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence

An impression of the abstract concept of WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.

I was fascinated by Ahimsa after I took a remote course INTRODUCTION TO NONVIOLENCE (PACS 164A) of Michael Nagler at UC Berkeley couple of years ago.Praise the Lord we have the Internet.Feel free to expand. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Mentioned your name at SPI

I was researching the page histories of Red Stone Arsenal to file an SPi comparing him to a recently-banned SP of NoCal 100, where I noticed you had suggested he is a sock of AFolkSingersBeard. So I also mentioned that allegation here. I don't know if you want to expand or retract that part of the report. betsythedevine (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Trotskyism

Greetings, comrade! I've added the piece of information again, but this time with a source. Trotskyist (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New Ledeneirhomme sock

You probably already noticed this, but if not you may want to look at the contribs of JPTINS3000 (talk · contribs). The obsession with following you (and others) around makes it pretty obvious. Cheers, nableezy - 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Runsroute

Hi Roland - this is not Runtshit. It is User:JarlaxleArtemis aka Grawp. He has lately decided that he's a pro-Israeli crusader (if that isn't a contradiction in etymology). You can tell (1) because of the use of harsh, obscene insults rather than toilet humor; (2) the use of old sleeper accounts; (3) pagemove vandalism. Cheers, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then that is probably true too of User:Norman Freakelstein. It won't be the first time this vandal has followed Runtshit and attacked his usual targets. RolandR (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at George Galloway. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 19:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits to this article were clearly covered by the BLP exemption. The single purpose new account was repeatedly making an unsourced and hostile addition to a frequently attacked article about a highly controversial public figure. The edit was clearly accusing the subject of deception, if not worse, and was thus not acceptable. The editor was warned not just by me, but also by Off2riorob and FreeBear that this edit was unacceptable, but persisted. Under the circumstances, my edits were perfectly reasonable, and I do not believe that they were sanctionable. RolandR (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This entire incident displayed an amazing amount of assumption of bad faith towards Eclipsemullet. If you read the edits a certain way, they're slightly BLP problematic, read another way, they just report that the top line of Galloway's facebook profile still says "George Galloway MP". A little more WP:AGF could have avoided this whole situation. That said, since reasonable minds can disagree, unblocked. Courcelles 22:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This is not a BLP violation in any way, shape, or form that invokes the BLP exemption to 3RR. The edit is OR, but the link clearly proves the content correct- to call this contentious is a real long stretch, and to invoke the 3RR exemption requires the material be contentious. Ergo, you were edit warring. Courcelles 20:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Courcelles, the source did not prove the content "correct" at all. The SPA's line did not follow the source: it misrepresented it in a misleading and disruptive way.
The SP wrote (as a single-line paragraph), "On Galloway's Facebook page, he still calls himself an MP.[43]" : He doesn't at all - he just still used his popular 'George Galloway MP' page - which does not mean he still has to be an MP, not that he is "calling himself" one.
You know, 3RR doesn't actually mean you have to give a block, esp to a time-served editor without the good-faith warning. It's really hard sometimes to keep within 3RR when someone adds misleading trivia without giving any reason in this manner - and this was surely a BLP violation. To a one-off SPA it means nothing to be blocked, and we know that many of them are made purely to effect people's block logs.
The brand-new SPA wrote a line that deliberately made Galloway look like a cheap liar. As an (eventual) excuse to keep putting it back in, he suggested Galloway deliberately keeps the 'MP' Facebook page to rally supporters - and claimed that makes it somehow relevant to the article. Initially no edit-notes were left at all, and the eventual one was an unsubstantiated attack on Galloway. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was an unblock. The template screwed up because I had used two {{ where I should have used two [[, and, of course, before dinner I utterly failed to spot my bad syntax. Now fixed. Courcelles 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi RolandR. I hope you don't greatly object to what some call "the orange bar of death" but I've replied to you here. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rights of Englishmen

Good revert on the sock-puppet - nice catch! Shoreranger (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

New accounts run by experienced users

Now that an admin has joined in - and very welcome he is - I'll make it explicit that administrative action against any individual is not being requested in this venue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi RolandR. I saw your remark at SPI observing that Red Stone Arsenal has returned to editing. I'd not realized the case was still open, and not having seen any appropriate action or interest on SPI's part, I asked RSA in an AE thread (permalink) whether he'd be willing to disclose previous accounts to administrators, in order to comply with wp:scrutiny.

He didn't answer that question. A user who's infatuated with me showed up and put a wrench in the spokes, instead, and rather than just ignoring him as I should have done, I responded. Then admin AGK twice deleted the portion of the thread where I and five others had discussed the question. It was rather a mess; if you're interested you can see the current context here: ( livelink/snapshot ). My final comment in the thread now documents what was deleted there.

But more important by far than any specific case is that SPI seems ill-equipped or perhaps just unwilling to deal with cases where checkuser results are negative. I thought AE would be an appropriate venue in which to raise the scrutiny question. But since that appears not to be so, we do need to find a venue where such scrutiny questions are welcome. If we're to have any chance of dealing effectively with the problem that Red Stone Arsenal appears to instance, the huge upsurge in new accounts that have obviously experienced users running them, we absolutely need such a venue.

Do you have any thoughts on a venue that would be friendly to requests for wp:scrutiny disclosures to admins, in general? Or any thoughts as to what next step is called for with respect to the Red Stone Arsenal account, in particular, if any? Or is it just that some policy needs revision to specifically require that new accounts with obviously-experienced users behind them be required to tell some trusted group what accounts they've used previously? If you don't mind, I'm going to ask Sean.hoyland to weigh in here, since he expressed concerns similar to my own in the now-deleted thread. And perhaps I'll ask a few others who've expressed the same concerns to weigh in as well. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comments on AE, and am in basic agreement with you. We do need to find a better way of dealing with these permanent disruptive socks. But I don't think the problem is really with SPI; most admins work according to behavioural patterns, and recognise that CU is far from infallible. Particularly when a determined sockmaster is using anonymisers and proxies in an effort to disguise theirself. I think that the real problem is Wikipedia's insistence on anonymity, and would prefer that all new editors be required to register properly, in order to prevent such abuse. I'd also like to see all BLPs semi-protected by default. But none of this is sufficient, and we really need to devise a more effective method of identifying and blocking abusive socks. RolandR (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
And see the latest example of this problem. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I commented on my view regarding how we might deal with socks on my talk page. un☯mi 10:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with RolandR that SPI works pretty well. CU is useful but not a panacea and no help at all when you are dealing with an old puppetmaster/sock where the data is stale. The latest example above is the sort of situation where we can only go on behavior. Sometimes this is pretty clear (and some of these cases are ones where IMHO the behavior needs to be discussed privately, however unfortunate that might be, so that the puppet master isn't informed of the clues that give them away). When you only have a handful of edits it's very tricky. And then of course there's the issue of meat puppets. I'd also like to see BLPs semi-protected as default but we can't even get - damn, mind's gone again, the revision thing we had on trial - even that wasn't popular enough. There's no chance CU data is going to be revealed, I'm pretty sure that the Foundation would object to that. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
And in this case SPI resulted in a block. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all the foregoing, except that I wasn't at all suggesting CU data be revealed. And I also think sockmasters should be blocked for a year. To block them for a week pretty much sends the message, "Sure, go ahead and try socking, or keep it up. We don't mind."
Re "the art of the possible", though, what I'm suggesting is that when we see a new account that's obviously not a new user, we should have community and administrative support for saying, in the right venue:
This account appears to be operated by an experienced user. Please privately disclose any former accounts or IPs via e-mail to our 'possible returning users sub-committee' per request #NNNNNNNN,
or to "our centralized checkuser in-box e-mail" or whatever we want to call it. If an account failed to answer such an inquiry to the satisfaction of that trusted group's members, a wp:duck block would be issued, regardless of checkuser results, for refusal to allow proper wp:scrutiny. Good idea? Bad idea? Possible?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Cleanstart thoughts --if a new/old account person is behaving politely and making uncontroversial edits, people don't care what other accounts they once had. And real "clean start" accounts are supposed to stay away from disputes the early account took part in: "a user who then re-enters disputes and topics where their conduct was likely to be noticed (blocks, disputes, disruptive editing, contentious and edit warred topics, and the like) may be seen as evading scrutiny."
I do notice though that some sockmasters create spare potential accounts, throw a bunch of random edits into the first few days, and then let them lie fallow until needed to votestack or whatever later. But I am sure a sensible admin can tell the difference between a real pre-cleanstart account and a fifteen-minutes-of-typing-on-a-public-computer pretend-Wikipedian. betsythedevine (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Good points. But is there any reason new accounts should not be required to privately disclose former IDs to some highly confidential registry, when asked?  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR

See the warningat the top of Talk:Steven Plaut. I don't think you are reverting vandalism, just someone who is new, so please no more reversions today or tomorrow morning. I've warned Harken Zee as well and mentioned this at his 3RR report on you. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See [2] - I'm assuming you hadn't noticed the 1RR restriction as you gave Harken zee a 3RR warning. I also assume you saw it as a content dispute and not a BLP one, given your edit summaries. If I'm wrong, sorry, but I can only go on what I see people write. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No, of course I saw this as a BLP issue. According to the policy page, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" (my emphasis). RolandR (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but I could only go by what you wrote in your edit summary. You didn't mention it being contentious - in a case where there is a 1RR sanction you need to be very clear about your reasons for reverting. And you certainly shouldn't have given a 3RR warning in a 1RR situation, that's just confusing. Are you going to raise an SPI? In any case, the page is now on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I already have done so[3]. RolandR (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good work there! I have to add that I've seen editors and even Administrators blocked for doing the right thing. I see you ran foul of something similar above (hadn't seen that before just now), so can I emphasise if you are reverting for BLP reasons, put it in the edit summary, maybe even go to WP:BLPN as well. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

CounterPunch

As someone who has edited the CounterPunch article in the past, you might want to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on Note: I have included JAZ as a citation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Roland. I realise I was confusing in the way I proposed this. The citation of JAZ is not in the first para, but one of the two footnotes to the second para, on Jewish and anti-racist groups criticising CP. The idea is that this follows on from the first para (on Is/Pal) in the topics section of the article. I have changed the way I have set this out here so it is a bit clearer. See User:Bobfrombrockley/Counterpunch. Feel free to ignore, and thanks for taking the time! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
As I explained on the article talk page, I am not really in a position to comment on the reliability and appropriateness of this source, or of the subsequent article. RolandR (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Runtshit, I think

what say you? nableezy - 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. For reasons that you will understand, I don't want to spell out all of the tics that identify Runtshit; but this thug does not exhibit them. Email me if you want more detailed reasons. It's more likely to be a sock of someone stalking you or someone you have recently clashed with on Hebron and Latuff. I see you have reverted a further sock at Talk:Hebron; it would be worth submitting a CU request, to identify any sleepers and possibly the puppeteer. RolandR (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

'collabouration' with Marx

Oops! Sorry about that - well spotted. I'm not sure how I did that - I thought I went through each change individually. :-(

The article probably needs checking for other U.S. spellings too, but I'd best leave that for another time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Gideon Levy

Hi Roland,

I added again the Wikilink to the Dutch journalist Gideon Levy (Dutch) as there is a real reason to fear confusing: the Dutch Levy makes documentary programmes on controversial items such as the history of current Israel. Yhe Dutch Levy is a notable person: they did win a Prix Europe for a highly acclaimed documentary on Lockerbie.

I do see a reason why you removed the link in the first place: the article wasn't there yet, but imho there is enoughj reason now to keep it in place. regards, Tonkie (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
You're a star ... so thought to send you one. Hope you don't mind, but I pilfered your userpage to populate my own with some boxes. Really glad to know that you're on Wikipedia ... Abedwayyad (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Ezra Nawi

hi, this is a bit random, but Google threw me in your direction. I am trying to find information on Ezra Nawi's conviction for sex with a minor in 1992; specifically the age of the Palestinian youth. I see you have good Hebrew: any chance you could help? Thanks! Cripipper (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but have been unable to find any reliable information; see my comment on the talk page]. If you know of any other relevant material, please let me know. RolandR (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Cripipper (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

A/E request

Hi Roland. I get an error screen when I try to view the second diff in your A/E request. You might want to double-check it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, corrected. Thanks. RolandR (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You also need to notify WF and add the notification diff to the request. nableezy - 19:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

I really wish you had just answered my last message here. I was more than willing to listen and consider your perspective. But seeing as you aren't interested in dialog, I've referred your conduct to AE here.—Biosketch (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Drork?     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. But I don't feel confident enough to submit an SPI. Do you? RolandR (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take my time looking at the behavioural evidence. Wonder what the One-Man Sock Annihilating Machine, Nableezy, thinks?     ←   ZScarpia   23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

National Socialism has been a section of Types of socialism since 2008, why did you blank the section?

your revert has has blanked a section which has been discussed in talk, yet not by yourself, or the original blanker. please give your reason in talk. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

btw, the guy who blanked the section, whose edit you restored, was also one of the section authors, odd, huh? "I touched up the Nazism and Fascism paragraphs to more clearly differentiate between those ideologies and traditional socialist ideas (without adding point of view). I also fixed up the writing style so it flows better (such as deleting unnecessary words and moving sentences to more appropriate paragraphs).Spylab 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab" Darkstar1st (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It's simple. Whatever you say, Nazism is not, and never has been, a type of socialism. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
if you are making a massive deletion which has been in the article for years, please make a note in talk explaining why, the discussion goes back 5 years. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
2nd request for comment in discussion after you again blanked the entire section. the reason you were undone last time was you didn't explain your massive edit. it is highly irregular to remove 5000+ letters that have been there for years, without citing a policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Arb enforcement request concerning Wikifan12345

I made a request for Arb-com enforcement on Wikifan12345 regarding two reverts made in the article Gaza flotilla raid. Since you reported a very similar incident a few weeks ago, you might be better suited to explain what happened during that case (which I am not familiar with). Thanks. JimSukwutput 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

blocked troll greattrial continueing to insult you

now he is wasting administrators' time by being nasty to you in the unblock request tags he also called me subhuman german scum!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Not to burden you but

that chap Reuven Kaminer, from the little I've read, sounds like an interesting subject for a wiki bio, or at least stub. Do you have any sources to that end? They're probably mostly in Hebrew. I haven't found much on the web that would fit RS. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have known him since 1971. There should also be English language material -- he is Canadian by birth. I'll see what I can come up with. A good place to srtart would be the Israel Left Archive, which he maintains. Particularly the section on Shasi, which was his political group. This too deserves an article in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you do come up with more material (the Nawi cite on him from Bronner is the only RS stricto sensu I have so far) let me know and we can flesh out a wikistub.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There are press reports of his trial for meeting PLO activists in the 1980s, though most seem to be pay-for-view. But see for instance this one from the NYT. I don't know whether my own articles in News From Within are considered reliable sources on this. His grandson Matan is the third generation to have gone to gaol rather than do military service in the 1967-occupied territories, and there are some press reports of this. There is an article by Reuven about the Israel Left Archive in Monthly Review[4], with a potted biography. By the way, I was mistaken -- he is from Detroit, not Canada. He is the author of The politics of protest: the Israeli peace movement and the Palestinian Intifada (Sussex Academic Press, 1996), which I should have read but haven't. I would probably disagree with many of his assessments. There is more RS material, including book articles and references to him in other writers' works, which I could try to get hold of. RolandR (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, if it's no trouble we could pop a few refs in here, to see what we've got to work on. This is the one from the Nawi page.*{{Cite news |title = Unlikely Ally for Residents of West Bank: last =Bronner |first = Ethan |authorlink = Ethan Bronner |work = New York Times |date = 27 June 2009 |url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/world/middleeast/28westbank.html |accessdate = 8 September 2011 |ref = harv. I'll try to do more when I get through the Nawi page. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The Sussex book is bound to have been reviewed, and those are excellent tertiary sources we can use.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Marek Edelman

Please look at the discussion page to see why i added this idea. Thank you for your comments.Pawelmichal (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ada Yonath

I'm not sure how well you can read Hebrew, but your statement that the source in the entry does not even mention Ada Yonath is simply wrong: אורי גורן, 70 , מתגורר במגדלי סי אנד סאן בתל אביב. אשתו נפטרה לפני כמה חודשים ממחלה ממארת. הוא למד במגמה ריאלית בתיכון חדש בתל אביב, ובכיתתו למדה גם עדה ליפשיץ, לימים כלת פרס נובל פרופ' עדה יונת--SimulacrumDP (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've found this now. The search-and-replace apparently couldn't cope with Hebrew text. Nevertheless, this appears to be a self-published source, and therefore unacceptable for a Wikipedia citation. RolandR (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
ידיעות אחרונות self-published???SimulacrumDP (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

WP:ARBPIA

ВП:БВК is the Russian equivalent of WP:ARBPIA. If interwiki is not appropriate, can it be linked in the "See also" section at least? --Vicky Ng (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is an equivalent of ARBPIA, it is a project of the Russian Wikipedia, and therefore is of no relevance to our work on English Wikipedia. We make our own rules and decisions, and the deliberations of Russian Wikipedia have no impact on our work. There really is no need to link the two. RolandR (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Apropos translation

Hate to impose on your time, Roland, but I think there are some very serious problems over at Price tag policy with a large part of the article needlessly sourced to Hebrew newspaper reports. Could you look over some of these? A glance at the talk page will focus my concerns. No hurry. Thanks and apologies.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look after I've had a cup of tea. RolandR (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Roland. Nah, just look at the source quoted n.16,n.18, n.19 from Nadav Shragai (last para of this)on the article page, check its context and if possible give as literal a translation as possible, if there is any significant variance. BestNishidani (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've read the Hebrew article; there doesn't appear to be an English version on the Haaretz site. The translation is more-or-less accurate, though I would have translated "מסויגים" as "have reservations about" rather than "disapprove of". The date, however, is wrong; it was published on 3 October 2008, not 10 March. Haaretz uses British style dd/mm/yyyy rather than US style mm/dd/yyyy dates; a fact apparently not known to whoever included the citation, which rather raises the question of where and how they found it. The article also states that Israeli security believes that settlers' leaders are behind the attacks, though they deny this; that people, particularly students at some of the West Bank yeshivas, receive text messages which do not order, but inspire, these acts, and that the youths themselves see some rabbis in Yizhar as their spiritual leaders, particularly Yitzhak Ginzburg, David Davidkovitz and Yitzhak Shapira. RolandR (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I worked out. You put your finger precisely on the phrase which worried me, but I wasn't confident enough to raise questions on it. I'll refer this to the talk page, and give the alternative you suggest on the article, so the others can sort this out.Cheers, pal.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
In that article, English sources will never say, given the laziness of commentators, what Hebrew speakers know, that 'mutual responsibility' as the settler term plays off "Kol Yisrael areivim zeh bezeh", i.e. echoes with the ethical commands of mitzvot that all Jews must stand as guarantors for each other. If you ever find, in desultory reading in the future, some Hebrew source which connects the settler term with this larger context, or analyses it in terms of its religious resonance, drop me a note. 'Bout time I had a cuppa too, mate. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm very reluctant to seek biblical or halachic explanations for such acts, which are characteristic of any colonial settlers threatened by the resistance of the oppressed and supplanted indigenous population. The settlers don't act in this way because they are Jews, they do so because they are settlers. They may indeed use terms with a religious resonance, or seek religious justifications; but in my view these are retrospective rationalisations rather than explanations. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I may not have explained myself. I'm quite familiar with standard interpretations of the phrase "Kol Yisrael areivim zeh bezeh" and its variants in halakhic commentary (in English). It is clear that settlers in coining that term misinterpret or abuse the commandment, taking it out of context, since the commandment of solidarity among Jews is not in any way to be confused with some fictive commandment of complicity in criminal violence, because the delinquent happens to be a Jew. What I thought worth keeping an eye out for was any source in Hebrew that would comment on what seems obvious to a goy like myself, that an act is being labelled with phrasing that resonates among the pious or even all Jews, though stretching violently the proper meaning of the original phrase it resembles and plays off. As you will have read any number of times, mastery of the world in good part consists of dominating the language we think in. I hope you don't think I can't distinguish quit precisely between a distortion of a tradition, and the noble tradition that is manipulated for mischievous effects.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Trolling

User:Millsstory who seems to be in the habit of describing various Jewish things as anti-Semitic.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To say thanks

The Special Barnstar
This is to say thanks for digging out that citation, including the quote, for me to use on the National Front (UK) article, despite my blunder of accidentally calling them "EDL". Thanks! – Richard BB 13:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR/Archive_8&oldid=1144668821"