User talk:Sean.hoyland

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

AE comment

I understand the compulsion in certain disputes to respond like that to another editor's comment, but it is better for you to self-revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you calm down

for your recent comments in various places aren't helping, and this is very sad. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 20:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElComandanteChe has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are doing something silly. Happy slapping!

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I was perfectly calm when I made those comments. Your concern may be better directed at preventing an editor from crossing over to the advocacy dark side. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only editor I can actually prevent from doing anything is I myself. If something is wrong with my editing, and if you have a couple of minutes, please let me know, on- or off-wiki; your criticism is always taken most seriously. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 11:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. You're a very welcome addition to the topic area and there are no complaints from me. If everyone in the topic area was like you I probably wouldn't make any edits there at all. I also think you are probably one of the editors with the best chance to resolve the Gaza Massacre issue, an issue that I think Agada should stay away from, at least in the sense of editing that term in the article as he will probably get himself into trouble again. How to resolve the issue is another matter. Other than having another RfC I have no idea. Hundreds of manhours have been spent on it and I think people have grown tired of the issue. Many, although probably not enough, long term editors have walked away from that article, which may be a good thing in the long run. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is a good idea. BTW, NASA calls it LENR ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of editors overturning an RfC that was closed by an uninvolved admin is probably the Wiki equivalent of a coup d'état. I think it would also undermine the RfC dispute resolution mechanism. The issue doesn't seem important or complex enough to go for formal mediation. I'm not sure I see a practical alternative to having another RfC. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vang Vieng

I've put in a request for semi-protection - [1]220.255.1.89 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE

I've added you to the AE for unacceptable behaviour of an editor. --Shuki (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks by the way. Was it something I said ? Would it help if I cited a source ? This one perhaps. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEQ

The IPs are at it again, and have been viciously violating the 1RR rule[2]. What's the usual procedure for blocking in a case like this? Sindinero (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do something about this yesterday. I've notified Tnxman307 again. See User_talk:Tnxman307#Ledenierhomme. Short range blocks are the usual procedure. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I've also made a request for semi-protection of the page itself, we'll see if that helps. Sindinero (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. —This is in light of some of your comments on the AE request concerning Shuki. My impression of you has always been one of a sensible, level-headed editor until now. I sincerely hope you won't prove me wrong, but if you treat AE as a battleground n that way again, you will be sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you have an idea for how much [censored] editing/POV pushing/crap-source inserting a level-headed editor can absorb. -asad (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification although I think a better approach would be working on the basis that an edit to a talk page with the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES header should be treated as sufficient notification. For the record though, I don't have a interpersonal dispute with Shuki. I have a dispute with a specific kind of edit they make, a type of edit that constitutes a small subset of the 11k+ edits they have made. As for impressions, one thing I've learnt from editing in the topic area is that if there is a relationship between what editors say and do and people's impressions of what they say and do, it's a relationship I don't understand and have little control over. So, I'll simply not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me. That should address your concerns. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no intention of banning you from AE, so whether or not you comment on future requests is entirely up to you, but had you expressed your concerns with Shuki's editing in a more constructive manner instead of arguing about it, there would have been no need for this conversation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]