Jump to content

User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

It is getting real ...

in Whole Foods Parking Lot AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the video successfully addresses the first and second of the four noble truths of Buddhism, it doesn't really address the third and forth. Also, he could have saved himself much angst by just getting his food from the Cathy Pacific lounge at LAX. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I share the guiding principal: "People are getting less smart every day, everywhere. It's a real world movement", and sometimes even actively participate. Frankly I'm not sure that Buddhism has all the answers, though definitely realize that people can get hurt also while visiting Trader Joe's parking lot. Anyway, stay well, Sean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Those are Chris Ware's words. We're all part of that real world movement and in no time at all we'll be sitting in chairs drooling, taking frequent naps and saying things like "I remember when this was all fields". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

wow, good revert but it is clear where your loyalties are. no need to pretend anymore. you are in the topic area for on reason and one reason only. you flew under the radar and it was cute but don't pretend to be neutral. you are a funny guy who does make good edits but leave the vandalism fighting to those who actually care about the project and neutrality. I agree that the junta was bad, but stop assuming every fight is the same. have fun.Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See [1]. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persecution of socks

First let me say I sympathize with you over your frustration regarding sockpuppets invading Wikipedia articles and Talk pages. They consume valuable resources and get in the way of the Project. In one case I even took it personally when it was discovered that an editor whose contributions I appreciated was a sock. So your comment here, which on one level is comical in a way, is poignantly true and sad. That being said, though, and recognizing that you've developed a far keener sense of sockpuppetry detection than I have, I do wonder if comments like this one are appropriate. Again, I hate to be in the position of defending a sock – and in fact I'm not defending him or any other sock – but the principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply to Wikipedia no less than it does in Western justice systems. You could have at least waited for a formal conviction of the IP before launching into a personal attack like that. (And even after the conviction, I question whether a personal attack can be considered a positive contribution to a discussion.) Part of me wants to take this to AN/I just to get input from the powers-that-be, because I haven't been able to find a clear policy that addresses these things. There's also the matter of editing another user's Talk page that's a problem, e.g. here. It's my understanding that a user's Talk page is essentially his own private property. Basically it comes down to whether a sock is allowed to be personally attacked – whether prior to, pending, or after his conviction – and whether his contributions can be treated as the equivalent of vandalism. At least this comment would seem to indicate that the answer is no.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of anti-sockpuppetism ? Isn't that a personal attack...or does a word have to actually exist before it can be a personal attack...hard to tell. I knew it was him based on data I have about his MO. There was no doubt or ambiguity or else I wouldn't have commented. I'm not a psychic. My day to day work involves things that are orders of magnitude more complex and risk prone than reliably identifying this editor's signal from the wiki-noise. Wikipedia isn't run by admins and I don't have to wait for permission via formal rulings by anyone before I say anything or for validation of my statements. Sockpuppets can't be here and they can't do or say anything. There are objective reasons why the descriptive terms I used are justified. A person who has been proven repeatedly to lie is a liar, a person who compulsively does something is compulsive, a person who sociopathically fails to distinguish between right and wrong is unethical. These are objective statements with a large amount of empirical evidence to support them for anyone familiar with this editor. They are not personal attacks, they are entirely accurate evidence based statements. I could use other terms too, some of them would even be positive, but I find it particularly sickening and way over the line that this person has even cynically exploited the restriction of basic human rights in the form of free access to information in parts of the world to try to lie their way out of blocks and justify the use of anonimizing proxies before. I have nothing but contempt for this kind of sociopathic behavior and I do what I can to eliminate it from the project and confront users with the reality of what they are doing in the hope that one day they will wake up, stop, think, and find an alternative approach such as the cleanstart process (which no one seems to want to use preferring instead to continue using deception for reasons I genuinely cannot comprehend). You can't honestly expect me to take you seriously about striking out banned editors comments on Nableezy's page or anywhere else for that matter ? I mean, come on. If Nableezy has a problem with me editing his page he will tell me openly and honestly, possibly using the words "fuck" and "off", which would be fine by me. You can take it to AN/I or anywhere else for clarfication but if the outcome gets in the way of confronting dishonest editors who blatantly and repeatedly break the rules, removing the effects of their presence and eliminating sockpuppetry I won't comply with it. I'll have to be blocked first. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
See, told you so. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
See also here, which was started by (suppress giggle) a sock of a banned account. WP:BAN also allows for the removal of any edits by a banned user. Sean, if it were necessary, and it isnt, you have my permission to remove or strike any comment made by a sock on my talk page. I was tempted to not say anything here in the hopes a user would actually take this to ANI as that would have been hilarious. nableezy - 12:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As if to show that life sometimes imitates art, someone has. Would you cocoa it? RolandR (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen that "Striking or deleting sockpuppet contributions" thread before... unbelievable. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I too share your frustration at the disruption caused by sockpuppets; especially the serial sockpuppetry we have seen in the I/P area: I have commented on another talk page about this.[2] We need to find a more efficient way of dealing with this, and of protecting the many decent editors who have been sanctioned after being targeted by socks. Meanwhile, I have just submitted an SPI on yet more Ledenierhomme socks. This abuse seems endless. RolandR (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the 93.91.196.xxx IPs were covered by a rangeblock but it expired earlier today. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) We especially need to find some way to deal with the problem of what I call "drive-by/short-term" socks. These are the accounts that show up for a few days, not necessarily consecutive days, make a batch of reverts, and are gone again, presumably on to the next account. The goal appears to be to force established users to "burn" 1rr edits, and it's pretty effective. When such accounts obviously represent experienced users there's no reason we should have to try to figure out whose sock they are in order to put a halt to their disruption.

They don't leave enough behavioral evidence behind, since they just edit for a short interval, and some, at least, seem to be sophisticated enough to evade checkuser detection. This problem will sink any pretense of NPOV in the I/P area if it's not resolved. Is there any comprehensive remedy anyone can suggest that has a chance of actual implementation?  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think default semi-protection of i/p articles is worth discussing. Zerotalk 02:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), "Anti-puppetism"? I can see how that might be funny, or offensive, but no. The issue is not whether a given sockpuppet is a liar or a cheat. Some of the users I've interacted with here are certified hypocrites and utter morons – but the point is that, much as I'd like to sometimes, I can't tell them so. WP:NPA explicitly forbids it, and for good reason. Indeed, that policy authorizes my reverting your comment to the sock at Nableezy's Talk page, per "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Whether or not Wikipedia is run by Admins, I don't know. But it is run by policies and guidelines, and they are meant to apply to everyone equally. Personal attacks, regardless of whom they're directed at or under what circumstances, do not belong in the Project.
Edited to add: Those are my feelings on the topic. The AN/I started to discuss this where it can get more authoritative input is here. We'll see if the Admins consider it as silly an issue as Nableezy (talk · contribs) is convinced it is.—Biosketch (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hows that working out for you? You ever notice how nobody complains that socks on the "P-side", however rare they are in comparison to the dedicated people socking to support the Greatest State on Earth, are treated poorly, or cries when their comments are struck out or their edits reverted? I wonder why that is. nableezy - 12:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you see for yourself? Everyone's cracking up laughing, people's bladders are exploding. It's the comedy event of the year – just like you said it would be. I hope you're not offended I didn't leave an invitation on your Talk page. Oh wait, you're asking about my ANI, right? I thought we were talking about something else. Well the ANI is even more informative than I had anticipated. A variety of contributors are sharing their interpretation of Wikipedia's policies in relation to the issue raised, stressing the pernicious effect sockpuppets have on the Project but also acknowledging how important WP:NPA is to maintaining a healthy environment for editors to work in. The discussion is even civil and serious, to boot. I'm truly sorry if it disappoints you to hear that.
No, I haven't noticed how nobody ever complains about the "P-side." But I'm glad to see you surrounded that expression with scare quotes, suggesting you don't accept it as a true representation of reality, because it presupposes a dichotomy I don't consider myself a part of. Yes, when it comes to our language and our content disputes and our ad hominem insinuations on Discussion pages, the simplest thing to do is to label an editor "pro-P" and "pro-I" and then draw a host of conclusions from there. Would it surprise you to know that I am both pro-I and pro-P? or is such an idea repugnant to the very fiber of your being? Actually, I honestly don't care one way or the other what you think. Really all I care about is that the contributors I collaborate with follow the rules and dedicate themselves to building a reliable, neutral and eloquent encyclopedia. If you're committed to that vision, ahlan wasahlan. But if it's winning political battles that motivates you, which I regret to say is my impression from the brief time our edit histories overlapped prior to your being sanctioned, and from your seeming inability to edit any Wikipedia articles not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict ever since you were sanctioned, then you'll have earned yourself a place on my Naughty list, to borrow a useful expression from our colleague and gracious host Sean.hoyland. And you will lose. Again.—Biosketch (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
A dichotomy that you dont consider yourself a part of? Really? So there is a reason you brought SD to AE for including the Golan in Syria and not Reenem for repeatedly including it in Israel, or reverting edits by that user that purposely distort the cited sources? Really? You think you are "pro-I" and "pro-P"? That is awesome, Im proud of you. Well, perhaps I shouldnt lie, much like you feel about me I dont care what you think. I judge you by your actions, and of those actions I have seen enough that I think I am reasonable in putting you squarely on one side determined to, oh lets go with your phrasing, "win political battles". My inability to edit any articles? Who wrote this, adding more material from quality sources to an article in a few days during my topic ban than either the editor who wrote the above or below comments have added to all articles in the past month? Next time, think before you speak and make sure that you arent showing yourself to be ignorant of the facts. I will "lose"? That is interesting. Stupid, but interesting. I wont waste any effort with the below, too much time has already been wasted attempting to get that "editor" to understand basic facts. But for the ANI, that "variety of contributors", they all said there as no issue here, right? That the responses by Sean and SD were "standard", right? Just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right discussion, because the one I see does not seem all that informative. Silly, in that somebody actually thought that this was something to bring to ANI, but not informative. nableezy - 12:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Minimal editing while topic banned from articles but still taking every opportunity to throw mud on talk pages. Let the battle continue I suppose.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono - where's the "Like" button???????? Soosim (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason I brought Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) to AE and not User:Reenem. Are you genuinely interested in knowing it or were you asking a purely rhetorical question? If it's the former, I strongly urge you to moderate your tone, as it encourages confrontation, not cooperation. If it's the latter, then it confirms that your underlying objective throughout this dialog has been to provoke my emotions rather than engage me intellectually. While we're at it, I also strongly urge you, the next time you're debating with yourself, as in your last comment, whether or not to lie, that you not debate at all and simply tell the truth. I sincerely hope this is not a dilemma you're faced with often when you contribute here.
You made valuable contributions to one article in the space of...how long ago were you topic-banned? a month? During that month, I and the other editor – whose name you appear to have some difficulty articulating – have made notable contributions to literally dozens of articles. One of us even created a new biographical article, and the other received a Tireless Contributor barnstar from a senior Wikimedia Foundation volunteer. Not that this is a competition, mind you; but it does reflect better on an editor when he's not obsessed with one tiny area of the Project.
You can continue trying to argue that the ANI is "hilarious" and "silly" if you think it makes you look prettier in the mirror. Meanwhile, here are some facts to ponder. Number of chuckles: 0; number of giggles: 0; number of snickers: 0; number of guffaws: 0. That's eight contributors total, none of whom laughed, and all of whom took the time to respond in earnest to my inquiry. I got what I wanted from the ANI. Clearly you, however, did not.—Biosketch (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Bear in mind that humour is a very personal and complicated business. Take Vince Fluke's case for example, "So I was watching The Great Dictator with Charlie Chaplin. Turns out I was watching actual footage of Hitler. What the hell was I laughing at?" Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not asking you to answer my question, I already know the answer. The rest of your comment is best left alone, as I often have trouble replying to comments of such, ahem, quality (try to guess if I mean that, or if I am debating with myself on whether or not to tell the truth). As far as ANI goes, no, I got what I wanted. Every single person dismissed your complaint as lacking substance. And I laughed. Everybody wins, well, except you. I think this is where you tell me that I will lose and I giggle. Bye. nableezy - 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Um...every single person dismissed my complaint as lacking substance? You're sure about that? Evidently, replying to comments of quality isn't foremost among the things you have trouble with. It's really a shame that in those debates of yours between telling the truth and not, the truth is so often on the losing side. Bye bye now.—Biosketch (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Really, youre going this route? You do know that nearly everything on Wikipedia can be linked to, right? Lets see, the discussion, archived here, began with you seeking comment as to whether three diffs relating to socks of banned users were "inappropriate", those three diffs being [3], [4], and [5]. You called the last a "personal attack". The following users commented in the discussion: Atlan, Sean, DeCausa, Cptnono, Errant, Nick-D (those two being admins) and Baseball Bugs. I generally ignore what one of those "editors" has to say about conduct, so forgive me for forgetting him in my "everybody" comment above. But of the others, Atlan said that they would do the same as the first two diffs and that the third was not a "personal attack", DeCausa made a general query and did not really address the topic under discussion, Errant said nothing was "problematic" and that these are "normal responses to socks", Nick-D agreed with Errant, and Baseball Bugs said if the user is banned the material may be removed on sight, per a link you should have been already familiar with as I posted it in my first comment in this section. Cptnono was the only person to find fault with any one of the diffs, but said nothing about the other two, saying Sean should not have made the comment. But, again, I usually ignore some peoples opinion on proper conduct and given that nobody else saw anything wrong with Sean's comment I see no reason to all of a sudden start paying attention. So it may not be "every single person" that found your complaint in lacking in substance as one person saw some substance in roughly 1/3rd of your complaint, but "every single person" not involved in the topic area, and "every single" administrator that commented. And yes, "every single person" saw no problem with the first two of what you called "inappropriate". nableezy - 03:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Come on, wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "Oops, my mistake" instead of going through that long, drawn-out, cop-out of a speech? You messed up. It happens. I'm not gonna tease you about it. Just give me some of those kittens or bouquet of flowers or whatever it is you're supposed to give me now and we can move on.—Biosketch (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As fun as this has been, let's not lose sight of what's important. 1) You misidentified something as a personal attack and inappropriate when it wasn't and you misunderstood the procedures for dealing with sockpuppets of blocked and/or banned users. That's fine. Now you know. 2) Nableezy is one of the key resources Wikipedia has in dealing with people who persistently violate WP:SOCK. If everyone became vigilant and active in confronting sockpuppetry and trying to find a solution, the topic area would be a far better place. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
"Fun," you say? That's an interesting perspective. But here's an alternative one to consider. And I wasn't even gonna open my mouth again, but part of me still believes in your capacity to be a positive influence on I/P contributors of all creeds and persuasions. 1. I made a comment suggesting that calling an editor "compulsive" and "unethical" could be considered a personal attack. You took offense to it and, rather than calmly explaining your position, implied that I was accusing you of antipuppetism and threatened to rebel against Wikipedia in the event that consensus should form against you. Now that Nableezy (talk · contribs) has been discredited, your language is suddenly level-headed and conciliatory. Why is that? Why is it "fine" that I misunderstood procedures now, when just a few days ago it was a pretext for adding my name to your Naughty list? 2. I sincerely urge you to consider with whom you choose to cast your lot in these parts. Your readiness to overlook Nableezy's behavior above and elsewhere – but in particular the glaring fact that his every message here is suffused with schadenfreude – on the altar of his being one of Wikipedia's "key resources" in dealing with sockpuppetry, does not help the image of neutrality you go to such lengths to try and promote.—Biosketch (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, all those words and nothing to say. I have been discredited? Because one person, an involved user, saw one part of complaint as having some substance, where everybody else saw it for what it was? Get off it. The point was, and still is, that nearly everybody saw your complaint for its true worth. Yes, I did not include "nearly" earlier, but if you think that somehow "discredits" me you are really grasping for straws. Cptnono agreed with one part of your comment. Everybody else disagreed with all of it. But Im the one thats discredited by those whole little charade of yours. How interesting. nableezy - 05:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

<- Biosketch, I try to find joy in all things. There are many things you don't understand about me. I'll try to explain but ultimately they don't matter because I don't matter. Nothing that happens in Wikipedia really matters. Also, I don't have much time as I have to travel.

  • My role doesn't include being a positive influence on I/P contributors of all creeds and persuasions. I literally don't care about my effect on other users. Sometimes I will encourage people to follow the rules, sometimes I will do my best to get them blocked when they won't. If I fail, it doesn't matter.
  • "You took offense to it". No, I didn't, I just thought you were wrong. I challenge you to say something that offends me. It's quite difficult.
  • "antipuppetism" = joke = play on the word antisemitism, something I have been accused of here before along with hating Arabs, being a Marxist, and many other amusing things that I only get the opportunity to be accused of here in WP. It's one of the aspects I actually enjoy about WP. Everyone in the real world is very nice to me so it's a welcome and entertaining change.
  • "Threat", "Rebel" ? No, there was no threat and there's nothing to rebel against. It was a statement of fact about what I would do if the outcome got in the way of dealing with editors who blatantly and repeatedly break mandatory policy. It doesn't matter to me if there is a "consensus" to not do or say something unless the consensus is actually supported by policy. There are rules, people should follow them and everything will work out fine.
  • I don't understand how Nableezy has been discredited. No one gets any credits here. Nableezy is an editor who tries very hard to make sure content complies with policy. It's very difficult in the I/P topic area because there are many people whose ability to think clearly in this topic area from a policy perspective has been damaged by what I assume is their socialization. I didn't realise I had a lot to cast but assuming I have, I'm happy to cast my lot in with any editor when they try to enforce policy. How it affects my image as an editor in the eyes on other editors is of no interest to me whatsoever. This is a crucial point to understand. Also, I don't have an image of neutrality nor do I claim to be neutral but you will never see me make an edit based on my opinions about the real world. In fact, you would be hard pushed to find an edit in subject areas that I care about (in a political sense) or in subject areas where I have substantial knowledge about the topic. I just don't edit articles about things I care or (like to think) I know about. This is how I avoid conflicts of interest and can survive in the I/P topic area.
  • I don't mind what editors say to eachother in conversations like this. It doesn't matter to me what Nableezy says to you or what you say to Nableezy. You are adults. Cptnono has said some spectacularly inappropriate things to Nableezy and vice versa. Life goes on.
  • My tone isn't meant to be conciliatory because nothing is broken from my perspective. Your actions were consistent with those of someone acting in support of a sockpuppet. You explained your position. Matters were resolved. Fin.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), all I'm insisting is that you be precise in your language and that you not make unsubstantiated claims. There's a difference – an important one, in this case – between "everyone" and "four uninvolved editors." Moreover, the purpose of the ANI was never to vindicate my attitude or to seek enforcement against anyone; it was to relocate a discussion whose flavor was becoming sour (in no small part owing to your sarcastic contributions) to a forum where it could continue on a more gentlemanly level.—Biosketch (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), thank you for clarifying. Happy trails.—Biosketch (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty obviously not true. I made one comment, an on-topic and not sarcastic one, prior to you raising this at ANI. You said here that you did so to see what the admins would say about these diffs. So, for at least the people whose views you claimed you were interested in, they all so no issue at all, or, to use your words, in their view the issue is as silly as I thought it was. Oh, and it was not "four uninvolved editors", it was "every uninvolved editor". Still an important difference? Oh golly gee willikers, I just dont know. nableezy - 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think you do know. You know very well. Back when you left your first comment here, this discussion was still about the diffs and not about sense of humor or semantics or whatever it's become about now. Most of your comment was on-topic, but you had to top it off with, "I was tempted to not say anything here in the hopes a user would actually take this to ANI as that would have been hilarious." Correct me if I'm wrong: you wished a user would file an ANI purely so you could get a good laugh out of it. Is that not so? In other words, (a) you did genuinely want the business of what went on at your Talk page to be the subject of an ANI, and (b) your motives for wanting the ANI were unethical in nature, even sinister, namely schadenfreude. Here is how the Collins English Dictionary defines sarcasm: "mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult." So yes, despite your insistence to the contrary, your comments – prior to, during and after the ANI – were sarcastic.
And on the topic of the ANI proper, I agree that every uninvolved editor supported an interpretation of Wikipedia policy essentially in agreement with Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs). That is not what you have been saying all this time, however. First you insisted that "Every single person" opposed my position. That argument was shown to be false, which you yourself reluctantly conceded, despite later insisting you were never wrong. Then followed several more days of pointless caviling. And now you're trying to convince me that all the uninvolved editors thought the ANI was silly, or hilarious. Well that isn't true either. It's easy to gage their attitudes from their language, and their language was dispassionate and professional through and through. Speaking of which, AGK (talk · contribs) recently requested that you maintain a "duly professional" code of conduct as a contributor to Wikipedia, to which you replied that you would try. Please try harder.—Biosketch (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I wanted you to go to ANI about this, and I was tempted to not say anything that would demonstrate to you just how frivolous was the issue you were raising. Luckily, for me at least, you went anyway. And yes, I wanted this because I thought it would be funny seeing the reaction to somebody complaining that a sock that hounds me purely out of spite because he did not get his way the one time I ever ran in to him would possibly have his feelings hurt because he was called compulsive and unethical. Or because somebody dared to strike his comments. The bad part of all this is that I only chuckled a few times when reading that ANI, no comments were really laugh out loud worthy (Sean, you let me down). I dont think I said that all the uninvolved editors found your complaint to be silly. I said I found it silly, they found it as lacking in any substance at all. Be duly professional? Of course, I will be as professional as is due. Bye, nableezy - 03:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This thread sure isn't funny. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It's disturbing is what it really is.—Biosketch (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
@Nableezy (talk · contribs), I'm sorry for the anguish you say an obsessive sock has caused you. I can imagine that if socks started following me around, it might turn me into a bitter editor also. Not that I'm saying you're bitter necessarily (I'm not saying you're not, either, though), but I would hope that upon further reflection you, especially as a person who edits articles about places of worship, might recognize that bitterness is something to transcend, to rise above, not nurture by, say, hoping lesser experienced contributors will file frivolous ANIs. I feel no resentment toward you after the candid explanation you offered in your last message. There are other things I feel, but I'll spare this page the moral condescension involved in saying what they are. So long.—Biosketch (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the point of that post, but no matter. Bye. nableezy - 04:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been nine days already. How come MitzvahBotXIII hasn't archived this discussion?—Biosketch (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MitzvahBot...that will be because there is no god, Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens. Not sure what's going on with the bot. It may be because the section below was originally part of this section. I split it but didn't give it a heading. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IP has changed

I got your message in error, not sure how you can get it to the user in question. (No idea what this is about). 188.28.64.27 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's from 18 October 2010. It's about the edit summary/comment here by someone using the IP then. They were puzzled why references were being used for a specific word so I explained the background. Don't worry about it. You can ignore it or delete it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything to add

Maybe I am being a bit rash, which is why this is still in my userspace, but I was wondering if you had anything to add here. I am really fed up with this bullshit, so I may be moving this to the proper location in the not so distant future. nableezy - 14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

An emotionless wiki-rules based robot would file a report. It's justified because he has become disruptive in article space although by filing it you will be giving him a platform for more nonsense. My primary concerns are
  • 1) He's crossed the line into disruptive behavior in article space with his tagging the Dahiya doctrine article in a transparent attempt to provoke conflict and his subsequent very weak, dishonest and unhelpful rationalizations of his actions.
  • 2) He is repeatedly editing while drunk (and disrupting AE...which I see has just been closed). No one here should have to deal with drunk editors with severely and self induced impaired judgment unless it's funny. There is enough impaired judgment in the topic area already.
The infantile, delusional, alcohol-fueled posturing on my talk page is quite interesting because you can see how he is modeling things as an online gaming environment but it doesn't affect content or AE. I expected to see some transference when I deliberately stepped in the way of the hounding to see what would happen but I was surprised at how easily the aggressive targeting could be transferred from one editor to another. I have to admit that I find it difficult to take the posturing very seriously. I don't know why he would waste his time trying to provoke me of all people. I've become so used to aggressive posturing bullshit around the world over the years that even waving a gun in my face doesn't seem to interest my limbic system nowadays. Apparently I'm not making it clear that I'm a coldhearted bastard. I will say this though to provide some perspective on how truely fucked up the topic area is. Many years ago when I had to cross from government held territory to NPA rebel held territory in the Philippines with a free fireworks show of government helicopter gunship strafing runs over villages in the hills, probably when Cptnono was wearing a nappy, the NPA guys manning the roadblock were more polite, more respectful, more rational and less aggressive than the bullshit idiocy that goes on on my talk page. Funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, we'll see what happens. Feel free to include the above sentiments there. nableezy - 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I swear to God, half the things I see make me just shake my head and say "are you fucking serious?" Like rub my eyes and hoping I had a temporary relapse into insanity, hoping that when I look again Ill see what was written was actually the exact opposite bass ackwards gibberish that I thought I had seen. Seriously tho, what the fuck? nableezy - 05:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, remember, it's only an encyclopedia (or at least that was the plan). I wasn't around at the weekend but I've read through it all quickly and I'll comment when I get a chance. It would be better if he could at least see that he's making things worse. There isn't a way for editors to know whether they are talking to a rational agent or an irrational judgment impaired agent. There's no point trying to resolve issues with the latter. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
@Nableezy (talk · contribs)→ You know, you might wanna seek the advice of a trained expert regarding that temporary relapse into insanity concern you're struggling with. (Hey...your words, not mine.) Was there one comment in particular that provoked the reaction? If by some off chance it was my comment, I'm willing to acknowledge that calling Miller beer "crap" may have been excessive and Eurocentric of me. According to our encyclopedia, their beers have won some prestigious awards. I'll only be qualified to offer a more thorough opinion in a couple of months, though.—Biosketch (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There were a few comments. And it was actually a hope that I relapsed into insanity. But when I stopped rubbing my eyes I realized that people had actually written some utter nonsense and acted like it was was an honest statement. But you have demonstrated, to me at least, the quality of your arguments and as such I see no reason to discuss anything at all with you. You above said you that pro-I/pro-P is a "dichotomy that you dont consider yourself a part of". That is a plainly absurd thing for you to attempt to pretend at this point. Feel free to have the last word, I dont plan on paying you any more attention where it is not necessary (meaning the only places I plan on interacting with you is articles and article talk pages, and perhaps occasionally in the WP namespace). nableezy - 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
A dichotomy as in "two mutually exclusive positions," as in "one can't be both pro-I and pro-P," as in "if one is pro-I he must perforce be anti-P, and vice versa." That is the dichotomy I reject. If you're so convinced I'm pretending and that my argument is absurd, you must have an overwhelming body of evidence to support that conviction. But of course you don't, because no such evidence exists. But then, you don't believe in referencing diffs in order to accuse people of things here, do you. That's not a question. The answer is demonstrably "no." And I don't have a problem with you saying "retarded bullshit," if that's what you consider to be compelling rhetoric in an encyclopedia Talk page – as long as the comment isn't directed at anyone in particular. Adios.—Biosketch (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Asad

Can I add a report on my talk page? Chesdovi (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer to that but an admin at AE will presumably reply. I suspect that the ban rules it out. I'm not really in favour of the one size fits all sledgehammer approach used at AE and in other areas like sockpuppet investigations. No one seems to be trying to help make things better in the topic area by using short blocks/timeouts, talking to blocked editors to try to change their ways (which is probably impossible in some cases but might work in other cases) etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Timothey is not answering. I'm itching before this is forgotten about. Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1rr

does not apply for reverts of IPs. nableezy - 06:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

yup, i forgot. thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the rvv at Stem cell. The IP was fresh off a one year block, so I posted at wp:AIV. It's usually worth checking contribs and the user talk history on these kids. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

stem cell is certainly vandal magnet. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

political violence

Thanks for keeping an eye on these two. --70.146.34.40 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sean.hoyland. You have new messages at ElComandanteChe's talk page.
Message added 16:58, July 12, 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your disruptive behavior

Why are you deleting my comments from another person's page? Tiamut and another editor where discussing an article and its editting. I thought the way they were using the article as a coathanger for their political ideas was wrong, so I commented on a user talkpage, a public forum. She responded and I responded back.

You had no right to delete my message. Please desist your disruptive behavior. Lutrinae (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You are topic banned. You are not allowed to make any edits whatsoever, anywhere in Wikipedia, related to the I-P conflict. If you make one more comment anywhere I will ask an admin to block your account. I don't care whether Tiamut or anyone else is responding, you cannot be here. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, on second thoughts, this edit is yet another topic violation, enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: West Bank

Hi Sean, and thank you for the message. The edits actually seemed strange to me, but I left most of them intact, including borderline cases. I trust you to make the right decision when it comes to this guideline, so I will leave the editing to you :) Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 17:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at my very first edit in that sequence you will see how it started and one thing lead to another.
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think that's done but there are a few where I'm not sure what to do.

thanks to all the settlers

It is much easier to wait for some random settler to bring one of the settlement articles up on my watchlist instead of looking through each article one by one. Join me in giving them a big round of applause for helping us out. nableezy - 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironic isn't it. That section they removed needs a rewrite/some better sources e.g. HRW and UNOCHA. I dumped 2 for now but kept the Wafa source. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Boilerplate

Hey, I'm not sure if we're still on speaking terms or what, but can you give me a link to the discussion that resulted in the settlement legality boilerplate text?—Biosketch (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course we are. My wiki-time and attention has been a bit fragmented and limited recently. Here you go, WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. By the way, I think the producing formation in Sarah and Myra is wrong. If I remember correctly the prospects in that area are gas sands, clastics that came off the Syrian Arc so they going to be much older than Plio-Pleistocene. They will be sub salt though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I specifically need to know if it's necessary to mention the legal status in every article that in some way or another involves one of the occupied territories. But I guess since it's an archived discussion, there's no way to ask that there...
Interesting you should mention the Syrian Arc. Geology isn't my forte (hence the problems at Sarah and Myra – and there are also mistakes in the ownership table, but that's another issue and the source's fault), but Syrian Arc is one of the higher ones on my list of articles needing to be created. If you go to Al-Bireh, you can see that an editor removed Israel from where it talks about the "central ridge." The problem is it's not at all clear that the central ridge doesn't also extend into Israel, because everyone's using different terminology for this formation and defining its boundaries however they wish. A Syrian arc article could establish, among other things, what the central ridge is. Feel free to edit Sarah and Myra, by the way, because the producing formation parameter is outside my ken.—Biosketch (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I try to stay away from articles about oil/gas fields. As for the Syrian Arc, it's goes from the Western Desert right up into Syria without any regard for passport controls. There's a rough map in here. I don't really understand the removal of Israel in that edit. The structure is independent of the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, the easiest thing to do with the Sarah and Myra producing formation infobox entry is to delete it for the time being because they're undrilled/non-producing propects. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


A little snack

two state solution by Neil Zolot

Zolot's piece in the Jewish Journal of the North Shore, in Salem MA, is a well thought out puiece on the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Have you read it or are you interested in limiting discourse on the issue? Others have contributed to the dialogue. Why not Zolot?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.49.65 (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, I enjoyed it and found it interesting. However, I don't matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The question is "why Zolot" rather than "why not Zolot". There are thousands of articles like Zolot's. See WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

your edits to the Rabin quote in the article Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

Hello Sean.hoyland

With regards to these edits, I think it's highly problematic only quoting one particular snippet of the interview in isolation, as that means distorting what Rabin was trying to say. When he speculates about Nasser's intentions and opines two divisions not being enough to start a war, he was talking about May 14 (at least that's in now, in the version before my edits it wasn't). Later on, Nasser had already seven divisions in place, and no one knows where things would've gone if the Israeli hadn't acted.

While what you quote seems to come from a credible source, it is highly selective (serving an agenda?) and therefore biased. It would be great if you could find the interview in its entirety in credible form and then provide a more balanced quotation.

You asked for my source for the additions I made, here it is:

http://ragout.blogspot.com/2004/08/i-do-not-think-nasser-wanted-war.html

And here are two excerpts (obviously, alternatively, additional and / or others could be chosen) I'd deem usable, both in their original French and an English translation:

"Je ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre. Les deux divisions qu'il envoya dans le Sinai, le 14 mai, n'aurient pas suffi pour declencher une offensive contre Israel. Il le savait, et nous le savions." [...] "A en juger par les sept divisions qu'il envoya dans le Sinai, apres le fermiture d'Akaba, il savait pourtant que nous considererions son geste comme un casus belli."

("I do not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it." [...] "However, judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli.")

Since it's all coming from a blog, it obviously isn't very suitable to be quoted (that's why I wrote in the edit summary "I still haven't found a really reliable version of the Le Monde interview, so if someone comes across one, please review the quote's accuracy"), but the version I was amending wasn't sourced in the first place.

Again, since you object to my edits, I'd appreciate it if you came up with an authoritative source and revised the quotation yourself.

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I understand and appreciate the concern but we can only quote what is reliably sourced. There's nothing wrong with that policy-wise strictly speaking but of course it's true that Rabin could have said anything before or after that quote that would shed some extra light on it. I've been unable to find anything and I spent quite some time looking. It's probably out there somewhere. I'll keep looking but a blog as a source is not an option. As a piece of advice I would be very careful about what you do at that article because it's covered by discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bisbee, Arizona

I'm curious, just for a laugh, what was that reference all about? Something to do with an author with the initials HST? JerryDavid89 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a reference to an author. If you were a sockpuppet of a particularly problematic and persistent banned user you would know what it refers to. Since you have said that you haven't been there it doesn't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bashar al Assad

Your charactarization of Assad as simply "Islam" fullstop is not useful to WP readers. This is because Assad is currently in the midst of an uprising in his country and a lot of the splits are on sectarian lines. This involves Sunnis fighting Shias/Alawis. Putting "Islam" is useless. Every reader is trying to find out whther he's a Druze, or a Twelver, or a Sunni or a different denomination because of the sectarian conflict. So please don't state the obvious. Saying Bashar Assad is Muslim is just as pointless as stating the pope is Christian. We already know the preisdent of Syria must be muslim by law so its redundant. I could easily find dozens of sources describing Assad as Alawi.

You should either remove the religion line from the template if you're going to put it like that or revert yourself please. Pass a Method talk 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The contents of that attribute are dependent on the WP:BLPCAT. That's it. Nothing you have said relates to policy. Go find dozens of sources where Assad describes his religion as Alawite or Shia as is required by WP:BLPCAT, a mandatory policy, and cite them. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mairead Maguire

No, but I can't seem to find any sources where she self-identifies as anything. I thought Britannica is accepted as a reliable source here? Also, those BBC news reports, etc, weren't biographies or articles about Maguire, they were simply news stories that mentioned her, so I'd say they're far less authoritative than an encyclopaedia. If you're really not happy, I'll self-revert. JonChappleTalk 17:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Britannica's certainly a reliable tertiary source here but I don't think it would be considered more authoritative than the various reliable secondary sources out there. Self identification is the most reliable but I suspect she might avoid labels. I was really just looking to avoid a possible mismatch with her self identification and the almost inevitable slow burn Irish vs NI swops (knowing the identity politics in that part of the world) but I'm okay leaving it as it is and seeing what happens, if anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree that self-identification would be most preferable, but as you say, I think she probably always avoided identifying with one side of the community at the expense of another. OK, we'll leave it for now, but if we get any edit-warring am happy with a neutral "from Belfast". JonChappleTalk 18:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat opposed to referencing Britannica.com, firstly because Maguire herself is an editor there and secondly because it's not clear what process of peer-review the online version of the encyclopedia goes through, if any.—Biosketch (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's any help, I have a copy of the 2010 edition of The Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite and can supply quotes from its articles. As Sean says, though, it would be better to use secondary sources.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, let me ask you this. On the one hand you question the reliability of probably the most respected tertiary source on the planet and on the other you describe Arutz Sheva elsewhere as a reliable source. What information do you think that contains about the objectivity and rationality of your assessment of source reliability ? Arutz Sheva is a publication that represents people whose views are very, very far from the mainstream indeed. From my admittedly biased secular/religion-is-nonsense perspective, publications like Arutz Sheva have more in common with the publications of Christian fundamentalists and Islamist groups than they do with the likes of Britannica.com. I will say this about Britannica.com, I've noticed that in Wikipedia, editor assessments of its reliability tend to be inversely proportional to the number of times the word Palestinian appears in the article. Strange but true. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the question. Note that I have no problem with ZScarpia (talk · contribs) citing his official version of Encyclopedia Britannica. My problem (potentially) is with the online version. You'll see if you go to Britannica.com that there's an Edit button in the articles. I'm guessing that means people like you and me can create accounts there and edit. If that's the case, it means Britannica.com is not reliable. Furthermore, it's been claimed that Maguire is a Britannica.com contributor. If that's the case, it's another reason why we can't site Britannica.com as an independent third-party source and attribute information from there to Wikipedia's voice – certainly not in a BLP.
In relation to Arutz Sheva, ugh, I really wish I hadn't read that opinion of yours, because it's completely detached from reality. First of all, Arutz Sheva is a news site. You can say what you want about the neutrality of their reports, but the analogy to Christian fundamentalists and Islamists is ignorant. Hamas, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, for example, are dedicated to violent struggles involving the murder of innocent civilians, retention of political power through use of force, and subjugation of their own populations under benighted religious doctrines. That is not a claim that can be made with respect to A7. What A7 is is a national-religious news source. They cover stories that don't receive attention from the mainstream press, particularly stories relating to religion and the settlements. That's their prerogative as an ad-funded website catering to a religious audience. To go from that to comparing them with Christian fundamentalism and Islamism, which are actual movements with organized bodies and proactive ideologies, is, again, ignorant.
"I've noticed that in Wikipedia, editor assessments of its reliability tend to be inversely proportional to the number of times the word Palestinian appears in the article." Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with that comment. Can you rephrase it or direct me to articles where you've noticed that?—Biosketch (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not ignorant at all Biosketch, it's enlightened. There was an age of enlightenment, some people missed out on it. Arutz Sheva can be objectively described as a propaganda publication. It filters news through the lens of one of the worlds remaining colonization programs based to a large extent on the interpretation of religious texts which is implemented through the use of overwhelming military force, subjugation and displacement of a local population. As far as I'm concerned that is an entirely fair and objective description and redflag that has nothing to do with notions of "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" perspectives or opinions about the rights and wrongs of the issue. Using it as a source for facts in the I-P topic area is as misguided as using a Christian fundamentalist publication as a source for facts in articles about evolution and an Islamist source for facts about the measurable benefits of empowering and educating women. As for "I've noticed that in Wikipedia, editor assessments of its reliability tend to be inversely proportional to the number of times the word Palestinian appears in the article", there's a funny story behind that. Some editors, thankfully not you, will go to extraordinary lengths to erase the word "Palestinian" from Wikipedia, bless them. I really have no idea why someone would want to do that but Britannica has been targeted as part of that effort. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
With regards to Britannica.com, clicking the "edit" button only enables you to "suggest an edit". It's not a wiki. JonChappleTalk 10:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You're correct, and it appears that Maguire was involved with the Britannica.com's "Peace People" article but not necessarily with any others, which would mean there's no conflict of interests in citing her own entry from the online website. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable referencing the hard copy of the encyclopedia, but it's not a big deal.
By the way, there could be a problem with the word "Catholic" in the Religion parameter of the infobox. Back when I added that, I extrapolated from from a source that said Maguire grew up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood. Today, however, I would consider that WP:SYN. That Maguire is Christian is clear from a multitude of sources, and it's also clear that religion is a crucial component in her worldview. We should try to find a more unequivocal source for saying she's Catholic, though.—Biosketch (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that you may have read me wrong Biosketch. I was offering to look up the Britannica reference suite on behalf of other editors, including you, not boasting that I had the ability to do it, suggesting that I would be using it as a source in Wikipedia articles or even suggesting that it should be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. On Wikipedia, what I use it for is demonstrating on talk pages what the Britannica says (I hope that my memory hasn't failed me and that I'm not going to be embarrassed by someone demonstrating that I have used it as an article source).     ←   ZScarpia   12:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Then I'm confused. You have the Suite but not the ability to look things up in it?—Biosketch (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been argued that using the online version of Britannica is undesirable. Therefore, to avoid the use of the online version, I offered to look up the reference suite on behalf of other editors.     ←   ZScarpia   09:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I heard this is the place for some OR ;), so: as it says in the article, and also in Debrett's#Debrett's People of Today, she attended a Catholic primary school. In those days (1940–1950s) it was more or less impossible to attend a Catholic primary school without being Catholic. Of course that only means she was Catholic as a child; it says nothing about her religion (or lack of) now. Zerotalk 08:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is a mouthpiece of the settler movement. That was why it was formed and that's how it remains. I can cite many excellent sources on that. It is true that it is a news site, but lots of religious/political interest groups have their own news sites, take this Christian or this Muslim or this Haredi example. (I'm not too familiar with those so I'm not claiming much specific about them; Google finds countless similar examples.) They do report on matters that are not covered by the general media, but those are precisely the matters on which their claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Unfortunately one reason why events can be reported on A7 but not in the mainstream press is that they didn't happen. I've seen quite a few examples in my 9 years in Wikipedia. Zerotalk 09:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Mairead Maguire, I mean, I'm guessing she's a practicing Catholic because she was raised in a Catholic neighborhood, is an openly religious person, and studied religion formally when she was younger. I just have my doubts as to whether that meets the criteria for a BLP article, especially considering the controversy surrounding Bashar al-Assad's religion, which I'm also involved in. (Weird how all these things are draining like tributaries into this Talk page...)
Now, in relation to A7, my impression is that the editors calling it a mouthpiece for the settler movement are putting their own personal opinions ahead of empirical findings. Zero0000 (talk · contribs) and Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) have been frank in their disapproval of the settler movement, and I think their disapproval of A7 is a corollary of that. But when you consider A7 as a news site, ignoring the editorials and not-purely-news content, it isn't an unreliable source for reports on what goes on and what people have said and such. It also can't be described as a settler "mouthpiece," because it isn't a pamphlet circulated by settlers; it's an independent news site that gives prominence to news stories in line with what its settler consumer base demands.—Biosketch (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Opinions are not the issue. The unreliability of A7 for news reports is the thing that concerns me. Anything related to the settlements or related politics is reported with severe slant which often amounts to falsehood. Sometimes it gets bizarre; one case that caused an edit war years ago was this report which was entirely false. On that day the soldier was only indicted and it was not until the following year that he was convicted. Not only did A7 think someone could be charged and convicted on the same day (which is really ignorant), that false report is still there 7 years later. A respectable news site would have at least pulled the story or added a correction. Zerotalk 09:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"Zero0000 (talk · contribs) and Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) have been frank in their disapproval of the settler movement"...no, I don't think that is an accurate interpretation. There is nothing to indicate that I disapprove of the settler movement because I don't. There's a reason for that that I will try to explain briefly below. I was simply giving what I think is an entirely fair and objective description without judgement. I can however be frank in my disapproval of Wikipedia editors who advocate on behalf of the settler movement and damage the integrity of the project by using their unreliable propaganda publications for statements of fact if you like. No one should be doing that. I certainly disapprove of people doing things because of religion but that is really neither here nor there and the live and let live principal overrides my bias. I can hardly disapprove of settlers for being settlers given that, as a migrant worker, I'm almost always a settler in someone else's country, albeit not a permanent settler. Migrant workers from the "developed countries" and multinationals very often live in areas that have in effect been colonized by people with overwhelming economic force who can economically subjugate and displace the local population. Such is life. So, I think it would be quite hypocritical for me to disapprove of settlers simply for being settlers. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are a migrant, than you aren't settling. Further, an English teacher in Thailand is not comparable to West Bank settlers, because Palestinians have slightly more respect for Avigdor Leiberman than any Thai does for a kee nok ajarn ingrit. Modinyr (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you measure "settling" and when something becomes "settling", 5 years, 10 years, 20 years etc, and whether you measure things based on the time individual people stay or the time the economically colonized settlement stays. These things are a question of scale. I'm very obviously not talking about teachers. My analogy obviously doesn't apply to migrant workers who are teachers because teachers (whether they are migrant or Thai) never have much economic power, bless them. I'm talking migrant workers who have economic power orders of magnitude more than the local population, who often live in "settlements" with security, who work for corporations, own businesses, are retirees etc etc. There are thousands and thousands of people like this around the world because of globalization. And of course it's not just migrant workers. Locals with sufficient economic power can also become "settlers" in "settlements". People are fluid, settlers/migrant workers move between settlements, they move across national borders, they can do whatever they want because they have economic power. My point was simply that settlers and settlements can be described using different metrics for "foreigness". In the West Bank it's the difference in nationality between settlers and locals that decides which set someone belongs to but in other places you can use differences in economic power and other factors. They are analogous. I should address your kee nok farang generalization. Apparently you know nothing about Thailand and the Thai people. That's okay. Probably not your fault. Ignorance is curable. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Zero0000 (talk · contribs), I accept your criticism of A7 up to a point. They have something akin to a mission statement on the front page of the English site, and it says, "Our love of Israel and its people are [sic] unchangeable and our reporting is as good as ever." That betrays a level of bias – or slant, if you prefer – that's to some extent intrinsic in their reporting. But if you regularly read the editorials at Haaretz, you'll encounter a comparable but inverse bias there such that if A7 is a settler mouthpiece, then Haaretz could be called a mouthpiece of Israel's post-Zionist elite. Ultimately these labels are of little value. I don't know if you're still halfway around the world or what, but it would be helpful to be able to examine that news story you mentioned if you can dig it up. Oops, just noticed the link in your comment. To be continued, then.—Biosketch (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Settling is deciding to live somewhere. Being migrant is moving around, not having intentions of staying. But bygones.

I was exaggerating when I said Thais hate English teachers more than Avigdor Leiberman. It is actually quite similar, though. West Bank Palestinians don't like the settlements but are economically dependant on them. They provide high-paying jobs in construction. So the Palestinians have an uneasy economic relationship with settlers. They hate them but also kinda need their money.

Now, Thailand has English teachers operating in schools to teach English to kids. This is to provide the Kingdom with future scientists, businessmen, and tourism operators. Thais love it when rich farang tourists come to the country, throw money around, and leave. They don't love the tourists, though. Thai culture is unfortunately racist. If you don't believe that, ask a Thai about Indians, Chinese, or Malayans (Thai saying-If you come across a lion and an Indian in the woods, shoot the Indian).

So Thais tolerate rich white people for their money. The term "kee nok," bird poop, is a term used originally for backpackers, hippies, budget travellers and other white people who don't have any money. Thanon Khao San is full of kee nok. So are English schools. Thai people are rightfully suspicious of men who come to Thailand to teach English. I personally support education and hope English will someday be an international auxillary language. You're helping make that happen, kudos. But Thai people look down on English teachers because many of the ones visible in society are philandering drunks who think they are White Raj come to civilize the brown man. You might not be one, but believe me, Thai people often assume you have come to the country to sleep with Thai women or girls or ladyboys.

I've never met you and will give you the benefit of the doubt that you teach in Thailand for decent reasons, like the natural beauty that you have shared with us above. Is that Mae Hong Son? Anyway, Thai people generally will concider you kee nok, bird poop. So far on this page you've shot your mouth off about the superiority of your political views, your religous views, and your deep understanding of Thai culture. There is that White Raj attitude. You think you are respected because a bunch of 9-year-olds prostrate themselves in front of you?

So have pride in your profession. It will keep you going once you learn the local lingo and realize all the nasty things Thais say about you. They tolerate your presence because you provide economic incentive, just like Jewish settlers. But they don't have to like it. So maybe you are similar to ol' Avidgor, except he has intentions to stay, and you have to go running to the border several times a year to refill your tourist visa. Modinyr (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are a piece of work. I'm not quite sure how to respond to you or whether I should waste my time. There is so much irrationality, generalization and so many incorrect assumptions in what you've written. It's quite surprising to encounter such idiocy in an encyclopedia but such is life. It's really very infantile and dumb to assume things about people whether it's me or the entire Thai people, an immensely complicated and diverse population of individuals just like all societies. For example, you assume that because someone lives in a country their work is in that country or is related to that country. Seems reasonable enough I suppose but in fact that's just not how the world works anymore in some industries including mine. You assume I'm teacher. I should probably be flattered but I'm not a teacher, never been a teacher, never will be a teacher, anywhere, anytime. You assume that because I live in a country you can talk to me about that country, my place in that society and I give a fuck about what you say. I don't. People, stupid people that is, often prefer to use simplistic models of things they don't understand rather than say nothing. There's no reason for anyone to listen to those people. That's an important thing for you to accept. Say less. No one will listen to you if you say stupid things unless they are themselves stupid. Furthermore, how a country I happen to be living in at any given time works, it's problems, the complex relationships between different sets of people that live there whether they are local, foreign, or tribes has nothing to do with me. I'm not a local, I can't fix it and I would never claim to understand it. Why would I ? That would be profoundly stupid. I could say something about some of the dumbfuck tourists that come here but what I think doesn't matter. It's really dumb to make general statements about large sets of people and it's especially and spectacularly foolish and offensive of you to think that you can speak on behalf of anyone else and say what they think about anything. You shouldn't do that and everytime you want to do that in future you should remind yourself that it's really fucking stupid and not do it. Stereotypes and stereotyped generalized statements about people whoever they are are best left to stand up comics. What I know for sure is that I know almost nothing about anything and I'm so confident about that that I put it right there on my user page for all to see. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I can just quote you...

No one will listen to you if you say stupid things unless they are themselves stupid.

After twice responding to me. I just wanted to refute your claim of being similar to West Bank settlers.

I'm not a local, I can't fix it and I would never claim to understand it.

Yet you do. By saying I don't know shit about Thailand, obviously you think you know alot more. All of my generalizations about Thailand are fair generalizations. Your inability to refute them, other than saying "your stupid", shows that you got bit by the truth. Maybe if you brushed up on the language of the country you live in you would understand the culture more.

It's really dumb to make general statements about large sets of people...

After you make sweeping generalizations about the half million settlers, Western residents of other countrys (of which you exclude yourself), people who edit in various topics that have different opinions than you, and religious people in general. You reminded me very much of those arrogant White Raj in Thailand who think that they are God's gift to the Kingdom. Just like you, they think all their opinions are gold. When I've been to Thailand and use my language skills, locals often assume I live there. Thinking I'm an expat, they attach negative stereotypes to me. This bothers me. The fact that you're a pompous know-it-all that lives in Thailand sparked that distaste in me, and so I called you a kee nok ajarn ingrit. You remind me of one.

Your front page says you don't-give-a-fuck, you maintain neutrality, and you know almost nothing about anything. Yet you let rip your arrogant assertions all the time. Maybe living in the East has taught you too much about duality. Modinyr (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_5&oldid=1140206499"