User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sean.hoyland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Arbitration enforcement editing restriction: Arab-Israeli conflict

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from commenting on arbitration enforcement requests by others relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, except where your own conduct is the subject of the request.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 11:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you have more confidence that admins can see through the smoke than I do. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, we can only work with the evidence we're given. At any rate, in response to opinions by other administrators at WP:AE, the duration of the restriction banning you from commenting about enforcement restrictions by others is set to three months. Sandstein 11:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some comments

Two things are known with certainty about AmirSurfLera, they are not a new user and they lie. That should, in my view, be sufficient grounds for blocking the account. Who the sockmaster is shouldn't matter, but for reasons I don't understand given the constant disruption by sockpuppets, it doesn't work like that.
Admins at AE can work with the evidence they are given but in AmirSurfLera's case they haven't. I already made it clear at AmirSurfLera's first AE case that a checkuser confirmed that they are a returning user with an undisclosed editing history (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151#AmirSurfLera. Their statement here (available via the link I provided at AE) that they have not edited Wikipedia before is inconsistent with the checkuser's result, because it is a lie. Nevertheless they are still being treated as if they are a 'new user' and had a request processed as if they are a legitimate user. This is an error.
Describing AmirSurfLera as a sock given what is known with certainty about them can't reasonably be described as casting aspersions.
What can admins at AE and other noticeboards do to help under these circumstances ? They can help by doing nothing, by not processing requests from editors when it is clear that the editor has unclean hands.
AmirSurfLera's sockpuppetry will be dealt with in due course. What hasn't been done yet is formally identifying the sockmaster. Checkuser Elockid hasn't edited since 2014-05-26. When they return they will be able to carry out further checks based on information I have provided. If the checkuser data is insufficient to connect accounts, then and only then will I spend my time and the clerks time at SPI on the behavioral evidence that connects indefinitely blocked Shamir1, with Precision123 and AmirSurfLera. But even then, there is nothing admins can do to prevent an editor like this from coming back and they will come back unless they can be persuaded to stop. Fire and forget style blocking doesn't work. What you see as disruptive conduct at AE, I see as an intervention to try to get someone to stop. Getting blocked for it is collateral damage.
As for trying to restrict editors from commenting at AE as a sanction in general, it can't be enforced. I don't think admins should issue sanctions that can't be enforced. Admins don't know who is commenting at AE because they generally don't look beyond account names. Compliance with this kind of restriction is predicated on an editor's honesty, their willingness to not engage in sockpuppetry. Sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors have commented there and filed reports numerous times.

Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

- I am not happy with the treatment you received here. I was thinking of opening an AN/I about it, but would like to hear your opinion first. On a related matter, see this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra. In my view, the treatment Sean.hoyland has received is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. IjonTichy (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a bad decision but it doesn't really matter. I don't mind. Admins are required to be uninvolved (and human) so some questionable and bad decisions are inevitable. One cost of being uninvolved is probably that admins don't really have a particularly good understanding of the state of affairs in the topic area, how bad things (and some people) really are, the level of deception and dishonesty, the ineffectiveness of policy, SPI, the discretionary sanctions, pretty much everything. The same mistakes are made over and over, actions that editors in the topic area know don't work and haven't worked for years. The discussion at Arbitration/Requests is important though. Something has to be done to fix the topic area. The only thing that bothered me about that AE report is that no one addressed the questions raised by editors. Admins are servants of the community and answer to the community. Editors need to be able to see that AE works and that admins will listen. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you have such a laid-back attitude about it (only way to survive in the IP area, I suppose!). The problem is that if this goes uncontested, then we really cannot say a word when the geese start quacking all over the place.[1]. Both are important, I think; both what is a blockable offence, and what to do with the throw-away socks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that socks coming only from only one side? The recently blocked user is clearly WP:DUCK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, socks are definitely not coming from only one side. I think socks are predominantly from the pro-Israel side by far at the moment and they have been for a long time. There is good evidence to support that view. What might happen is an increase in the number of socks on the pro-Palestinian side. If admins are unable to protect the topic area and its editors I think it can encourage vigilantism. That is probably one of the reasons why there are so many pro-Israel socks because there is a perceived inability (whether true or not) to deal with POV pushing. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Shrike, I think I accidentally ignored your second sentence. If you mean Sepsis II could be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK, I don't know whether that is the case. They could also be a genuinely new user with strong views. Their earliest edits in ARBPIA suggest that they didn't know what they were doing e.g. see the ref formating here. Of course it's easy to fake such things too. I'll also add that all socks are not equal to me. Some don't concern me and I'm not interested in which side they support. The socks that really get my attention are the ones who show signs of sociopathy. They are a danger to the content and the community. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrike: In my experience, pro-Israeli socks outnumber pro-Palestinian socks by somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, there have never been off-wiki canvassing by the pro-Palestinian side (AFAIK), while there have been several for the pro-Israeli side. (I recall a baloon-trip over Israel as first prize for the most "pro-Zionist editor of Wikipedia", or something like that, one year ;P). Also, if you meet pro-Palestinian activist, (and just take my word for it: I have met quite a few) you will soon realise that no group, absolutely no-one, dislike Wikipedia as much as they do. This was established very early on. (Just a hint: Don´t ever tell a pro-Palestinian activist that you edit Wkipedia. Unless you really like beeing despised, that it.) Pro-Palestinian activists have instead flocked to http://www.palestineremembered.com/. It is embarrassing to see how well that place has covered basic info, like population at different censuses, etc. Much, much better than Wikipedia. And that web-site is now being quoted in academic sources (which I can assure you that WP´s I/P pages are not.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Talking about activists, one of things that concerns me about the topic area is the systemic bias in the sampling of imagery that is an unintended side-effect of Wikipedia and Commons licensing requirements. The IDF have the good sense to use creative commons licenses but that generally isn't the case for images related to the conflict. B'Tselem is an exception and there are a few others. I hadn't heard of Jordan Valley Solidarity until recently when I stumbled across one of their reports while looking for sourcing for something on Wikipedia. They happen to have a nice collection of images. Unfortunately they don't have the right licensing for use here, so I contacted them to ask whether they would be willing to convert the licensing to creative commons, not really expecting a reply. Much to my surprise they said yes. In fact they said "We've now changed the license on our flikr page https://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanvalleysolidarity/ and you are very welcome to use our photos". Unfortunately it doesn't look like they have actually managed to change the license settings yet, but I assume that is a technical issue that needs to be followed up. Anyway, I'm hoping that will make some more quality images available at some point soon. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding unsourced defamatory material to Jennifer Rubin (journalist) BLP

I've already asked you to stop restoring this content. You're violating the cited policy by restoring it. Please do not restore it ever again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: - That is your opinion, rather than a fact. Having looked at the content I don't think I am in a position to assess the validity of the opinion. It is however a fact that the article was targeted once again by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis along with many other articles and editors from various IPs that have been blocked. This has been confirmed by a checkuser. I (and probably others) will continue to revert on sight any edits made by JarlaxleArtemis. I trust that you, as someone I assume is knowledgeable about the subject and the article, can ensure that those actions do not cause collateral damage. I understand your frustration but trying to order me to not do something won't get you anywhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm going to keep reverting that content with the same edit summary, so I'll trust you not to take offense when the reverted edit happens to have been made by you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to offend me. Don't worry about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia is pro-Israel is laughable. Wikipedia has a heavy Israelophobic bias, and the topic of Israel is dominated by far-left Europeans, Muslims, and other types of Israelophobes. "Palestine Remembered" is an anti-Semitic hate site that promotes Holocaust denial and negationism.

Dispute resolution

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, socked, and two eaten twinkies...

I've noticed your position on socks and blocking. I've also noticed you take an effort to convince some editors to switch tracks. I was just wondering what you would propose to change the current system?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult problem to address. I don't really have a clue how to solve it because it's systemic and the root causes are almost completely out of our hands. I would try various things and see what happens. In practice, they don't really stand a chance of ever being tried.

Suspend the right to edit anonymously in ARBPIA and find some kind of alternative. This is probably impossible in practice for a variety of reasons.
Introduce some kind of (manual) edit count entry requirement for the topic area (e.g. ~500 edits).
Strictly and rapidly enforce WP:NOTADVOCATE in articles and talk pages via short blocks and block people over and over again to shut them down. This is easier said than done, but right now, it is as if the policy doesn't exist. The discretionary sanctions say "Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area." It should say "Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies will be blocked."
Stop operating under the illusion that admins have any actual control over what happens in the topic area at the moment. Face up to the reality that the only thing admins can do in practice that has a real effect (at least temporarily) is to block a user or an IP. I would like to see a lot more short blocks with far less wikilawyering about whether to apply a block or not. If it results in some bad blocks so be it. Admins should be jamming the activities of people not suited to the topic area.
Stop operating as if Wikipedia is a court of law. Start operating it as a private entity that can expel anyone for any reason. There is no justice here or presumption of innocence. If someone looks like a sock or an advocate, block them and move on. If I were an admin I would be patrolling the topic area and aggressively blocking people (just for 48 hours) until the advocates and socks realize that they are wasting their time. In other words, I think the topic area should be very hostile to people who resemble, even slightly, advocates and socks. At the moment it is very hostile to long term editors in good standing.
Get a lot more checkusers and check every existing and new editor in the topic area.
Get the foundation to look into technical solutions to prevent sockpuppetry.
Talk to socks. Find out why they do it and what would make them stop.
Rather than topic banning people (which is of course technically unenforceable in practice), give people the option to avoid a topic ban by x number of edits 'writing for the enemy'.

How about you ? Any ideas ? Have you seen Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#IP_area_still_being_swamped_by_socks Sean.hoyland - talk 04:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sean.hoyland. Thank you. Hobgoblin Spock (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why new users allowed to file such reports at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right. It's a waste of resources. People seem to forget it's a charity with limited resources. Oh well. People are strange. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to note the claim that blocks are not intended to punish. I question this claim as I've seen situations that seem to suggest otherwise. I would actually like see block length limited. Like no more than one month. Based on severity. Since is not about punishment the length only needs to be long enough to end the disruption. If they get a month and come back another month can always be given. For the more persistent I'd either have ARBCOM review it and make a decision or some independent body. I'd also note that it may not be necessary to block someone from wikipedia for violating Arbpia. Simply blocking them from Arbpia related articles might actually accomplish more. If they are not a SPA it might actually show if overall the editor is often disruptive or not. I would also note the letter of rules can be pushed more than the spirit of them. An edit war is not a requirement in a 1RR violation. 1RR and 3RR and similar were created to end edit wars but then with 1RR you can make the complaint that someone has made more than 1 revert. There need not be any actual content dispute. A recent definition of a revert is basically a change to any content that anyone else has created. That really puts a tight noose around good faith editing. An actual edit war should be a necessary qualification for a revert violations. The rules should be balanced to immediately deal with disruption and then try to actual deal with the problem at hand. Blocks are very easy to get around. Honestly Some puppeteers you really won't be able to get rid of. But then there is a question if you can deal with some by actually addressing them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Khdeir article and editor Midrashah

Hi, Sean. I'm looking for the right way to bring this up. Midrashah is clearly passionate about this article, but clearly has limited English, and has gaps in knowledge about WP standards. How do we approach him and ask him to limit the volume of edits and work with someone else to keep to WP content and format quality? I'm not so comfortable with the direct approach, but maybe you have thoughts on it. I redid the article almost top to bottom once today to clean up the mess that it was, and I don't think I (or anyone else) should have to do it again, especially since it is almost guaranteed to go to technical 1RR violation. And BTW, TY for noting in the summary that you were going 1RR in a cooperative way. Spirit of cooperation is great when we can get it on I/P. FYI, I had removed tthe NYT ref because I'm sick and tired of their creep toward 100% paywall, even though this article isn't paywalled... yet.)

Things I noticed:

bare URLs
a ton of non-English sources that could easily be replaced with English sources. I already did half a dozen of those, but I'm done
repetition (e.g., age, teenagerhood)
unsupported facts or OR that has a high index of suspicion (I can't find a single link on the web connecting the car to the earlier abduction report)
he has also violated 1RR several times over

Thoughts? I'm going offline soon for most of the weekend, so if you want to take an initiative without discussing, I'm OK with it, whether it is opening up a communication channel with him, finding a third party to do so, or going to the admins. I have no problem with what he wants to do with it, other than the reversions and the unsupported material.

- Dovid (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think for your own sake, one thing you should probably consider is to not be too concerned about the article for a while or else you're going to waste a lot of your time firefighting. Wikipedia is meant to be enjoyable after all, although it often isn't in the ARBPIA topic area. In situations like this with new articles about current events I tend to focus on changes that are very unlikely to be reverted (like fixing references) until things calm down weeks or months later. I'm not familiar with Midrashah at all, even though they've made thousands of edits. Actually, I don't think I've seen (or noticed) a single edit of theirs before this article, but I agree with your assessment of their editing there. I assume they probably wouldn't listen to me if I approached them directly. Why would they ? They probably need an ARBPIA notification. Although non-admins can issue these nowadays, I disagree with that decision so I don't issue them. I'll contact an admin, pass on the concerns and we can see what happens, but I'm not very concerned about it. These articles about current events in the conflict usually have a rocky start and if you look at Midrashah's profile (see Frequently edited pages at the bottom on the page), it's unusual for the editor to make this many edits to a single article, so perhaps they will move on soon.

I know what you mean about paywalls. I've added an archived version of the NYT article to the citation to avoid the inevitable relocation of the article behind their paywall at some point in the future. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

AE Warning

As a result of this arbitration enforcement request, you are warned not to accuse others of being a sock without sufficient evidence. Otherwise, adverse blocks or topic-bans may issue. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's patience over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Saudade7 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

clean up 78.48.187...

RE: "clean up 78.48.187.11's edit. see Al-Quds rocket edit summaries for details. this content is only in the lead at the moment, which is inconsistent with WP:LEAD. needs moving to body with summary in lead."

Hey buddy,

contrastin' your thoughtful notes, please have the look at this quasi wikipedia-standard notation:

"The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law..."

This formulation is spread all over Wikipedia also WP:LEAD ... so please have the nerve and let this one also stay despite of WP:LEAD ...

See, e.g.: Tekoa,_Gush_Etzion

.. to me looks like a wikipedia political statement and also WP:LEAD , but is heavily protected by the "usual subjects" revertists in wikipedia ;) and no quick wikipedia one to revert it -- makes you question... Why did they put my initial original notation of "international community" out?? Geneva convention is a corpus of the international community..

Regards.. --78.55.70.204 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that statement. The statement about settlements is the product of a very long and detailed policy based community discussion based on a large sample of reliable sources. It isn't the product of one person on the internet unilaterally deciding to do something for whatever reason, probably advocacy on behalf of the State of Israel, which is of course not allowed as I'm sure you are fully aware but do it anyway. I removed "international community" because I think it's redundant. There's no real dispute over it so I think it's better to include it as a simple factual statement about the laws of war. Even groups that target what the international community would regard as non-combatants/civilians not engaged in combat, organizations like Palestinian militant groups or the IDF (e.g. when they target Gaza policeman or activists), they usually do so by arguing that they do not qualify as non-combatants (for various reasons) and can therefore be targeted. So, they're not actually disputing the conventions. It's not the same as the statement about settlements because the community decided that should contrast the positions of the international community and the Israeli government on the conventions. Another difference stems from our obligation to reflect the approach used by RS as far as possible. For Israeli settlements, reliable sources (apart from some of the Israeli media) almost always include a statement about the illegality of settlements under international law when they discuss settlements in general or individual settlements. Consequently, so should we. But when RS report on the many events and groups that violate the laws of war during combat (like suicide bombs in Iraq etc) they usually don't mention the anything about legality so it's less clear whether we should (although I don't see why not) and it becomes more of a case by case issue for us, and more complicated. I haven't really given any thought to the question of body vs body+lead for a statement like this about the laws of war because I'm more concerned about the practical aspects of cleaning up the wording and sources used. I think it's content that should be included but each article will need to be looked at individually (including articles about Israeli actions and many other articles of course). It has nothing to do with "having the nerve". If I think something complies with policy and will improve an article I'll do it. A generic statement like this about the laws of war has a far wider potential impact across article space than the statement about settlements, which only applies to Israeli settlements. Colonies (and colonization) are things of the past. There are almost none left because the days of colonization are over, apart from the Israeli settlement enterprise (and a couple more instances), but there are groups and actions that violate the laws of war all over the world and consequently all over article space.

Here's something for you to think about. You have created a statement about the laws of war. Do you have the nerve to include a statement like that in other articles about groups or events that have been accused (by HRW and many others for example) of violating the laws of war; the IDF, individual brigades of the IDF, articles about actions by the IDF or the weapons they use, all sorts of articles actually, without any bias ? You have only included it in articles about Palestinian groups and related things. Why ? Is it because you support Israel's actions and oppose the actions Palestinian groups ? If so, that biased approach isn't allowed by policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments about things to think about for me, in a mirroring way, exactly display, what you seem to allege me of: bias. Tell me, why should I develop a nerve to "include a statement like that in other articles about groups or events that have been accused (by HRW and many others for example) of violating the laws of war"? In your say, coming from the universal side "about groups or events", you locked in to the specific "the IDF, individual brigades of the IDF, articles about actions by the IDF or the weapons they use". I believe that there is no need for this kind of single-sides IDF edits you suggested, but to the contrary - need for edits like mine, leveling up the informations provided to an even level, not lacking crucial infos. Did someone ever added these infos I provided, since I did? No! Would one have these infos at hand and the sources, from left to right political sides (HRW, Geneve conventions, Arutz7), I tried to give? Yes! There is abundant info about IDF - human shield - courts involved - ngos - int community - adresses - UN etc. And the IDF/Israel admits to based allegions and tries to eliminate war crimes (which are a phenomenon in every army). The other 'red, wilde (edom)' side is implementing and using these bad things, and does not try to eliminate it. That is a huge difference to be singled out by evidence and blatant informations. Man - is it, that bias could be rather found on your side, if one would look??? Not to let you get frustrated by this uncovered evidence of your own words and statements, I rather would like to backfill the trenches, by saying that I only was motivated to edit, because there is a apparent dispriportion on the simple information level of the articles I edited. And I focus on content and not like you - on scrubbing work of others, according to wikipedia community comfort zones. Look I am active on wikipedi since it started and dropped out in 2000/2001 because of the growing of interest-clusters and so much hatred to establish it. If you came in later, research will tell you that there was a huge wikip. crisis! I have exp. with many, many, many wikipedia 'scrubbers', which may not be arround any more, which behaved in a very destructive way of hatred to launch their skills and techniques just to dispell inconvenient content users, according to their agenda or just because the experienced "might (ubermensch)", they might had lacked in real life! E.g. the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Binksternet, which reverted my edit like you, has an impressive edit log since 2007 - but i did contribute even more, and, out of an adverse position, I commited to stay out of an account and would defend this freedom. What does he lack? I would say that my edits, he reverte have many good things and quality information, but may not be in oscilation with the usual wikipedia vibes in that topic. He easily could have corrected or adjusted it, to work in a way that refines and does not quickly destoy. My first wikipedia account had 3 letters, you see! And you might wonder, why would someone ackt that stupid like me - even not getting revard for it? I can tell you that hole blocks of my content still stay in wikipedia since it's beginning, almost unedited and it was me, that hinted the current system of an extra page for "pending edits" to be confirmed, and that may is installed longer than you are editing in wikipedia... I maintain my ease of soul by simply try my best in a limited time-frame and leave it to a 'higher power' and the sincere trust in the good of man. My edits are always constructive suggestions in fields which might need more holistic stance - there will alway be individual wikipedians which have a good moral compas and are not easily coruptable by wikipedia-community, that will rather co-work than destroy! You see, you nudged a nerve of mine, and just because of your gentle ways and your efford, to answere me at mindful length, I write back, what I normaly do not do ( and I had an argument with your answer ;). Thank you for that kindnes, it helped me, I appreciate it :) P.S. From the ductus and contents and presentation of the user-page of the user mentioned above I got a gut feeling, that an efford to explain and aswer my edits, might not be reasonable! And the photos on your user-page are just good work, not repelling me! Take care, man! --92.226.92.54 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Israli comments

I think you should leave them. They serve to expose Zionist megalomania better than anyone else could. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A few years ago I would have just laughed, but now I think of shiny new editors who might innocently wander into the topic area hoping to be able to improve the encyclopedia and what they would think. Most people would probably rather not have to deal with the dimwitted and offensive soapboxing of indoctrinated ultranationalist child soldiers, despite it being comedy gold much of the time. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess there's enough of it here already. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but why is someone who uses words like "Zionist megalomania" even allowed to edit pages like the one on Operation Protective Edge? (now renamed). I thought wikipedian editors and admins were supposed to be neutral. tharsaile (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

People are entitled to their own views as long as they keep them off article talk pages per WP:TALK and as Edward Murrow said, "Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences". More latitude is allowed on user talk pages. If you thought Wikipedia editors were supposed to be neutral you thought wrong. Editors are required to edit neutrally. Most in the WP:ARBPIA topic area don't. If there is compelling evidence that an editor is systematically biased in their editing, that editor can be reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement under the discretionary sanctions that cover the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. tharsaile (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How else would you characterise this rant?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean the edit at the top right of that page? I suppose I would characterize the writer as a religious zealot. He certainly sounds like a nutcase, but I hope he is not the typical Israeli, nor even the typical zionist. tharsaile (talk)

Clark

hiya, I saw you in the chat - so

chat link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clark_Aldrich - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Help + Co-op requested: Human Shield

Dear Sean.hoyland,

you reverted my edits to the article human shield:

"looks like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. +the content violates numerous policies/guidelines. it needs to be completely rewritten/re-sourced before restoration +it's a blatant WP:NOTADVOCATE violation triggered by Protective Edge Op."

Would you please co-operate with me, because I believe, that not all informations added by me deserved this razor revert.

Could we co-operate and make a version, that would fit to your/wikipedia standards, because, it might be, that, while I am editing a very lot since wikipedia's beginnings, did not came up to the standards developed by the wikipedia comm..

What I would go like for is something like this: The int. comm. regards the use of human shields and the use of indiscriminate warfare like qassam rockets and suicide bombers as illegal under int. law. Hamas and some Palestinians deny this. -- based on quality sources that are available.

Please let us co-operate on this; I did invite the second reverter Binksternet also.

Sincerely, -- 85.182.63.227 (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected

Hi, I thought the loonies have had enough fun now, so I semi-protected this page. Please ask for it to be removed if you don't want that. Zero^talk 12:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Given what you put up with today, you probably could use something stronger. Thanks for the AN/I on this guy. Jim1138 (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but editors like this don't bother me at all. I actually prefer his honest WP:NOTADVOCATE violations on behalf of Israel and openly expressed hatred over the far more common insincere wikilawyering approach to nationalist advocacy in WP:ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone were to say to Jeremy: "If I need a good reason to hate Israel, I'll just look to you". Or something to that effect. Maybe that would jog his sensibilities... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

He's certainly not doing Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the various online efforts to improve Israel's image with the public any favors, that's for sure. It's probably too late for Jeremy, bless him. I guess if he really cared he would have already moved to Israel or a settlement in the West Bank and joined the IDF, so I assume it's just something he does for entertainment. Tilting at windmills from the comfort of his mum's house when he started this as a teenager doesn't seem too bad, but he's a bit too old now surely ? It's been ten years. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Sean, could you please take a look at User talk:81.218.168.143, where I've posted two messages and 81*143 posted ‎his response (above my messages). Is the response posted by 81*143 correct? What is the consensus in WP:ARBPIA on the use of 'militant' vs. 'terrorist'? Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, they're wrong (and editors will usually get it wrong if they try to derive rules from the current state of Wikipedia articles rather than policy and guidelines). Editors in WP:ARBPIA, just like everywhere else, need to follow WP:LABEL. It's completely inappropriate to use Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice to refer to Palestinian armed groups as terrorists or their actions as terrorism. I guess the IP, given their location, may find this difficult to understand or accept but there is zero chance that their edits will stand. Edits like that will always be fixed by someone at some point because they violate NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean. IjonTichy (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your message to me

Sean, Thanks for your comment. Can you please clarify what exactly I did wrong in your opinion ? I know that I messed up the heading level putting july 24 on par with weeks 1,2,3 - I already fixed this. If it's about citing the source - I don't see any information about that at WP:LABEL. Thanks, WarKosign (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was probably a bit vague. Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice shouldn't be used to refer to the armed groups in Gaza as terrorists. You can change it to militants or attribute the term terrorist directly to the IDF and use quotes. For source citations, they need all the details, not just the URL. Look at other citations in the article to get the idea. The Wikipedia:RefToolbar makes it easy to fill in details. Citations should look something like this <ref name=i20140723>{{cite news|title=Israel-Gaza conflict: Israel may have committed war crimes, says UN's human rights chief|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-israel-may-have-committed-war-crimes-says-uns-human-rights-chief-9624205.html|publisher=The Independent|date=23 July 2014}}</ref> Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

On your reversion

May I ask why you reverted my edit which added objective facts and made other improvements such as in grammar and sentence structure? The one sentence you objected to is a fact. I will leave it out, but I will consider it bias by omission that while claiming Israel denies Palestinians of self-determination it fails to say that they could have had their own state in 1937 (Peel Commission), 1948 (partition plan), and 2000 but rejected one. If you don't like these facts, please talk to me before assuming I'm biased on the issue. I'm actually trying to fix an article which has too many assumptions and not enough facts. In fact, considering nothing I said was remotely biased, I'm questioning YOUR edits. By the way, you have no legitimate right whatsoever to question the integrity of my editing. Unlike you, who mostly watches from the sidelines to keep the status quo and revert anything remotely bold, I'm trying to make novel edits. Forgive me if I'm being harsh but your reversion of such an un-contentious edit shows your lack of neutrality. Instead of looking up the issue, you assumed I was "advocating". My edits were INCREDIBLY objective for such a POV-laden article. --monochrome_monitor 09:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally I left you a message. Regarding "you have no legitimate right whatsoever to question the integrity of my editing", of course I do and of course I will if you do things that make me question the integrity of your editing. That is why I edit in ARBPIA, to mitigate the effects of editors whose content decisions make me question their commitment to and understanding of policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR

That's your second revert at Palestinian tunnels, so kindly revert or you'll be in violation of 1RR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's okay. You can report me. I don't mind being blocked for that. I stand by the edit. You shouldn't have moved the article from the generic title while the discussion on the talk page was ongoing, a discussion you hadn't participated in where there was clearly no consensus for your edit. That was a bad decision on your part. You have been editing for years and should know better than that. If I have to pay for your mistakes I don't mind. Hopefully you won't do it again. Tell me you have learned something and won't do it again. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As you wish: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sean.hoyland Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My wish was that you tell me you have learned something and won't do something like that again. Maybe next time. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaza City hatnote

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at Talk:Gaza City.
Message added Joshua Issac (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Arab-Israeli conflict

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area (see WP:TBAN) for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 06:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Pariah state". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

Ok, just a word; we need commons categories for several of the places on the Gaza strip (and more pictures, of course). I hope you will upload some to commons (I´m not that splendid on copy-rights issues myself). And I wish there was a barnstar for "people not wearing blinders", if so, you would deserve it. Cheers, best wishes, Huldra (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll certainly try to find some more time for commons if I can. I'm fairly active over there, on and off. I'll also see if there are more organizations out there willing to change the licensing of at least some of their images. I'm done with Wikipedia though. I've seen enough bad decisions. A decisive factor was the realization that, should I wish to appeal the topic ban, there's really no one to appeal to, at least no one with what I would regard as sufficient understanding of the nature of the topic area and its inhabitants to consistently act in the best interests of the project. I tried to make ARBPIA a little bit better, like many other editors who have come and gone over the years. I've probably made about 20,000 edits to articles and talk pages in ARBPIA dealing with the nonsense. That's not bad. I guess it will take years and many, many editors to clean up the WP:NOTADVOCATE damage and put robust systems in place to deal with all of the POV pushing and POV pushers. I'm sure it will happen eventually. Not now though. I don't think the topic area is going to get better until admins who make ARBPIA related decisions have the same level of understanding of the realities of the topic area as an editor like you. They won't have that unless they have every article with an ARBPIA template watchlisted([3][4]) and are as involved as the editors. They should be patrolling, actively hunting for POV pushers rather than passively waiting for editors, many of whom have probably already lost faith in the systems, to bring them evidence of bad behavior. That's not going to happen though thanks to WP:INVOLVED and WP:AGF, ill conceived policies when it comes to ARBPIA in my view. In the meantime, editors can only make the best of it and try to keep a lid on the worst examples of misuse of the encyclopedia. It's been a real privilege to be able to collaborate with so many good people with integrity over the years who have persevered and stayed focused on building an encyclopedia in spite of the appalling abuse they often receive and amazing but comical lack of integrity of so very many editors in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Its a problem of the system, you have to be oblivious to be "uninvolved", but you have to know whats going on to make sound decisions. So you have people making decisions who, by design, have no idea what actually constitutes poor behavior for an encyclopedia, and people who have an idea cant make decisions. Its bizarro world. Whatever tho, ill pour out a lil liquor for you. Take care, nableezy - 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and enjoy your liquor. Cheers. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Naw, cant drink it, just pouring one out for the heathen. nableezy - 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sean, suggest wait a few more days and then appeal the topic ban to user: Sandstein. Most admins probably don't have sufficiently deep and broad understanding of the defining characteristics of the ARBPIA area. But there is some chance that admins will view your appeal favorably because they may be becoming increasingly aware of the great need to resist the relentless attacks on WP from the many POV-pushers who operate in the area, and the fact that the POV-fighters, such as yourself, are increasingly out-numbered and out-gunned. IjonTichy (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein is extremly clueless; he believes ending editor conflict is what is most important, not article quality. To reach the end of ending editor conflict, considering the massive number of socks and their unblockability, Sandstein believes blocking editors who oppose socks is the correct action to take. A mix of useful idiots, zealous racists, and government funded editors has already taken control of the IP area. Outside admins don't want to deal with such shit and the WMF shares the ideology the cabal is pushing. Sepsis II (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the purpose of the AE noticeboard is to address editor behaviour. That being so, it's senseless to criticise Sandstein for doing exactly that. The claim that sanctions are imposed as a preventitive rather that a punishment often amounts to a pretense, though. Do the admins really think that a three month topic ban is necessary to prevent Sean from disrupting the IP area? I doubt it. Realistically, the ban was imposed as a deterrent and the only semantic difference I can see between that and a punishment is that, in a punishment, there is often, though not necessarily, an element of revenge or retribution. The admins were quite within their rights to impose the ban. For an appeal to work, I'd guess that Sean would have to admit that he shouldn't have breached the 1RR restriction and commit to not doing it again. Having chosen to make a stand on principle, that would be a pretty big climbdown. ← ZScarpia 19:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that it's bad that they put so much focus on pretty small issues like reverts while POV pushers and socks can go crazy. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

While Sean and I haven't always been in agreement regarding the appropriateness of certain content in IP articles, I have found him to both reasonable and honest in his edits and contributions to Wikipedia. Even if I didn't agree with him, I never felt that he was acting in bad faith or with malicious intent. To impose such a punishment against him over these relatively small issues seems overly punitive. I hope the admins will reconsider this ban.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC))

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Pariah state, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

sock you identified disrupting Idle No More

researching a particular edit, I found t his. I had noted that User:Steve348 was who first added POV content in a new mini-edit war on Idle No More. see this edit and not following ones from an IP address. See my comments on Talk:Idle_No_More#POV.Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Just found this from his early edits....seems counterfactual edit comments are more than a habit; they're a technique.Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

noting this, too. and wow, this. Same editor called this a "typo correction". Article needs protection pronto.Skookum1 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

who dis

[5] nableezy - 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Aight how bout dis nableezy - 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2nd one is 100 % an unfamous sock. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

110 % given the "know-how"... Pluto2012 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thinking the first one is Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs). Man this is fucking tedious, hate having to think about dumb shit like this. nableezy - 19:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You probably have seen this already but the second one was Wlglunight93, and is already blocked after my report. This is the second sock of theirs I've uncovered in the past month: it is hard to keep up with them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

Heya Sean, haven't had the pleasure of working with you yet. Hope you're well. I was reading your statement here and I thought a few of the things you said were probably over the line of what's considered unacceptable personal attacks. I totally understand if you would rather leave their refactoring up to others, but I thought I would raise it with you here. In any event, I thought you might particularly want to take a second look at the sentence beginning I was lucky enough...

I know it's irritating to have people bring crap like this to your talk page and I'm sorry. For what it's worth, this really is just a friendly note and not the kind of "friendly" note that is so often a veiled threat to take someone to ANI or the like. I think everyone is interested in getting this whole ugly thing resolved with a minimum of additional conflict. Best regards. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your tone, but really there is no line in practice. Editors can literally do as they please here with no real consequences that prevent them from editing should they chose to continue editing. That is the problem in the ARBPIA topic area (and others). They can personally attack anyone they like, edit war, advocate for whatever foolish/divisive belief system they were taught to believe in - they can do anything. If they are blocked they can simply create as many sockpuppets as they need. It's easy and there is nothing admins can do about it. There are precisely zero effective measures to enforce compliance with Wikipedia's rules. Nothing works and yet people keep doing the same things. I used to believe in the social construct that is Wikipedia but I don't anymore. It's broken, apparently beyond repair for the time being and Malik's case illustrates that. I took a second look at the sentence beginning 'I was lucky enough...' and I'm very happy to see that apparently I can't even spell college properly. My college would be proud. Anyone is free to refactor anything I have written if it offends their eyes. I don't care. What does it matter anyway. Nothing will change. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely understand where you are coming from. I have personally thus far steered clear of the IP area in large part because of how nasty it gets. Here's hoping that whatever ArbCom ends up doing here doesn't just make it nastier. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hi. I have sent you an email. Would you kindly read it and get back to me? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it. I'm a bit busy today but I'll try to reply later today. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I see NoCal100 (or someone resembling them given the pettiness and sociopathy) has switched over to the Special:Contributions/EscEscEsc account since the Brad Dyer block. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: - finally managed to reply to your mail. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet

I saw your comment Israeli settlement, about suspected sock, facing similar reverts by suspect. Input most welcome, case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim 495656778774 (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you are also reverting Special:Contributions/Beukford because I think that might be AndresHerutJaim too. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

~~I doubt Beukford is a sock too.~~ AndresHerutJaim a very persistent sock, continually changing ips, and calls on many users for help. 495656778774 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I have just started User:Huldra/sandbox, collecting useful links/suggestions for the ongoing Arbcom case. You (or anyone else "watching" who can contribute constructively) are most welcome to participate, any suggestion will be appreciated (Evidence must be delivered before September 8), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I would also dearly love your input here; I believe you "know" this joker better than me? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Would love your input on NIF talk page

I saw that you are listed as retired, but then I also saw that you are continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. So I'm putting it out there in the hopes that you might feel inclined to lend your voice and experience. See these questions on the NIF talk page: Talk:New_Israel_Fund#What_to_do_about_the_calls_to_boycott_NIF. I would really appreciate your comments. Perplexed566 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that would involve having to discuss things and collaborate with Israel supporters and I don't do that anymore. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Sean.hoyland. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hope you're doing ok. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, very well thanks, but I have no patience for the presence of WP:NOTHERE editors/socks nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)