User talk:Asucena

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Asucena's talk page

I am an official of the Palestinian Authority. I am authorised to answer your questions about Palestine.

[edit] Conflict of interest policy

Hello. I would like to point you to wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. According to the wikipedia policy, as an official of the Palestinian National Authority, you should either "avoid or exercise great caution" when editing articles that relate to the Palestinian authority or any related such articles. Please take the time to read the policy. Welcome to wikipedia, and we hope to see you contribute gainfullt to the encyclopedia together with all editors in accordance with wiki's policies and guidelines. Thank you. -- Avi 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No. No connection. I learned some in school. Thanks. -- Avi 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy; if you revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours you can be blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Allies of Israel"?

Japan and the EU are "Allies of Israel"? According to whom? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, as a Hamas representative, you shouldn't be editing the Hamas article anyway, as per WP:COI. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Palestinian Authority official releases. I'm sure you'll agree that Hamas is not terrorist per-se, especially not the political arm.--Asucena 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:ATT; claims made in Wikipedia articles must be attributed to reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no WP rule against biased editors - only contributions. She can edit whatever she wants. Also, arguments about articles belong on their respective talk pages. See Wikipedia:Harassment. --132.69.234.73 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken; please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. -- Avi 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does it explicitly prohibit anybody from editing anything. Yes, it is clear Hamas has a lot to learn on the issue, but driving it into WP's underground won't help. "Attack the content, not the person." --132.69.234.73 08:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In my observation, there are rather few editing those pages who don't seem to have a conflict of interest, if that means having an interest. So long as the editor "exercises great caution" as the guideline urges and abides by core policies, this is acceptable and has ample precedent. It's really quite pointless to insist otherwise anyway, as no disclosure of affiliations is required of any editor. We rely on the good faith of all editors here. Derex 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?. You seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by the term "interest". Thanks. -- Avi 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I believe in equality and if Jayjg is not willing to state why he has such an interest in Israel related articles then his instructions can carry no weight. I will however attempt to keep neutrality just as any other contributor would --Asucena 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg does not have to describe why he has such an interest in these articles any more than user:Grace Note, user:Bless sins, user:Tiamut, user:Kirbytime, user:ALM scientist, user:Abu ali, user: Halaqah, (and I can go on ) have to explain their interest in Israeli, Palestinian, and Muslim articles. The issue here is your occupation as a paid representative of the PNA, which is a WP:COI issue, not a WP:NPOV issue. Please review the differences between the two; there apparently is a lot of misconceptions here. -- Avi 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I believe that you will find that notwithstanding the claims of various editors from all backgrounds, that the majority of editors would prefer to work with each other, even if they come from different perspectives. Please give it a try before writing off entire blocks of editors before you interact with them . -- Avi 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to state why I have an interest in the articles. I have nothing to hide, Avi, unlike some. I am interested in the occupation of Palestine as an example of a poor outcome of colonialism and nationalism in our world. Because Israel is basically a Western nation (I do not use the word in any way to imply an ethnic "Europeanness" or any sort of ethnic designation), its actions are of concern to Western people in a way that other nations that behave as badly or worse are not. Politically, I strongly oppose the ethos of the ruling faction in Israel, and on Wikipedia, as a strong believer in WP:NPOV, I look on aghast at the POV editing on both sides, but naturally, more so at that on the pro-Israel side, which outnumbers and outpowers the other. I do not have any affiliations to any group or faction involved.

As for the majority of editors' preferring to work with each other, that is simply untrue. Both sides are plagued with a full quota of revertbots, battling to insert their own POV. You're well aware of that, Avi. Grace Note 05:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we all should use the talk page more often. I have had success when dealing with people with alternate views. I am sorry you have not. And predisposing people to continue a situation that you feel is improper will do nothing to solve it, no? -- Avi 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that my knowledge is valuable for Palestine articles, I also think that my honesty in declaring myself an official source of accurate inside information is a good thing. User:Jayjg has not afforded his fellow editors such honesty, yet presumes that his word can act as law! --Asucena 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a private citizen, he does not have to. You are an employee of an organization, so as relates that organization and related articles you must edit with special care to WP:COI. Jay is a private citizen, unaffiliated with any governmental association, he does not have the same issue. Now were he to be editong about someone in his family, for example, he would also be bound by WP:COI. Policies and guidelines are to be enforced where appropriate. One of those is to assume good faith. You should be assuming good faith when it comes to Jayjg, just as you want people to assume good faih when it comes to you. And lastly, please remember, that while it is true that you may have better information because of your employment, you also have less of an impartial view for that same reason; thus the purpose behind the conflict of interest guideline. -- Avi 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is Asucena employed by Hamas, but she is employed as part of her PR duties to edit Wikipedia. There could not be a clearer case of WP:COI than this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hour block

This account has been blocked for 24 hours, specifically for this edit.[1] The edit summary stated: in that case my 3rd and final revert, in accordance with 3RR will be to remove the words "of course" + to restore valuable info regarding anti-hamas western governments' relations with Israel Yet instead of restoring information the change deleted an existing citation while adding barely anything to the page. That violates WP:VANDAL and treads on WP:3RR, which is explicitly not a license to revert three times in one day. Other factors that weighed in this block were a remarkably rapid escalation of edit warring and POV pushing, plus the declared WP:COI on these issues. Although your candor in declaring your affiliations is appreciated (I'll assume good faith and suppose they're genuine), I strongly recommend this article and this essay to guide your future contributions. Also the mentorship program can help ensure that your contributions here become productive and encyclopedic. Please use this break to familiarize yourself with site procedures and be aware that poorly conceived attempts to alter Wikipedia content have backfired upon other well known organizations. I hope your future contributions to our site are collaborative and productive and I will gladly respond to any questions you may have via e-mail. Go to my userpage and click a link at the far left of your screen to contact me. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To that end, there's any number of people who would be happy to help you with making what the project considers productive contributions. Speaking as a Foundation press person, English Wikipedia has endless ongoing problems with organisations that feel encyclopedia content on them is inaccurate or inadequate, and we like to try to resolve these things without undue discord, in a way that fits with the encyclopedia project - David Gerard 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real world claims by users

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Important real world claims on user pages should be sourced or deleted. WAS 4.250 06:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This edit

Hello. I am sorry, but that edit violated at least three principles here in wiki: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. In general, if you have a problem with a particular editor, we have something called dispute resolution. Please utilize that instead. Thanks. -- Avi 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Although you should bear in mind that the user you have a problem with is a former member of the panel of judges in that dispute process and still has access to their private mailing list. You should also bear in mind that editors in disputes with old hands generally find themselves banned or their editing privileges infringed. Having said that, I caution you against inflammatory postings towards other users on your user pages. It won't serve any reasonable purpose. Grace Note 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious POV/COI violation - Last warning

The edit summary here speaks for itself. This is a very serious violation of Wiki rules, and you have been warned often enough about it. I am sorry, but next time a violation of this sort occurs, you will be blocked in accordance with policy. Please use the talk pages to discuss controversial edits. Thank you. -- Avi 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It's a ridiculous cite though. Aaronovitch! You people have absolutely no shame. Grace Note 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV/COI violation - again

This edit to Move America Forward not only violates WP:COI, but is a blatantly point-of-view editorial commentary of the sort not allowed here in wikipedia. You have been engaged cordially and respectfully by various editors, and you are persisting in violating procedures about which you have been informed, and polices and guidelines that you agreed to be bound by when you joined teh wikipedia project. Please refrain from doing so again; otherwise, in accordance with wikipedia policy, further measures will have to be taken to protect the integrity of the encyclopædia. Thank you. -- Avi 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are bound by WP:COI. Secondly, edits such as adding the words "rediculous", "propoganda", and similar personal commentary are forbidden under WP:NPOV. "Logical" or "silencing underdogs" is not an excuse to add partisan statements or original research to an article. I urge you to review the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and discuss your edits on article talk pages, so that you can contribute to the project successfully. However, continuing to flout wiki's rules will require protection of the project, which may include a cessation of your editing rights. I am sorry that you feel the need to take issue with me "personally" as I have done my best to treat you with respect; however, rules are rules, and in order to contribute to the project, you, together with everyone else, must comply. If you feel that you cannot, then by all means, post what you will on your own websites, but not in wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:3RR, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV violations on Move America Forward. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- Avi 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government editing

Asucena, thank you for stopping by. I haven't clicked on the links you provided. If you feel that there are government officials who are editing those articles, and have concrete evidence of this, you may wish to report the matter on the administrator's noticeboard. From time to time, people involved in various governments do try to edit subjects which they are directly related to, and we discourage it, just as it is being discouraged in your case. IronDuke 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Asucena, could you say what this comment of yours means, please: "Myself and a colleague with our judicial profiling service have serious doubts over your motivations here"? [2] What is your "judicial profiling service"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of googling it. I can't find any reference to Hamas' having one. I feel that I should warn you, Asucena, that mention of "judicial profiling" can be understood as a breach of this policy. You will find yourself expelled very quickly if you do breach that policy. Making quasilegal comments, which make the editing environment awkward for your co-contributors, is very much frowned on here, and rightly so. I urge you to make every effort to edit strictly in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia, and also to show more willingness to show an understanding of the guidelines that you have also ignored. Even those posing as representatives of political organisations must pay lip service to WP:COI. Grace Note 05:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaronovitch

I meant that the cite you deleted was to a writer called Aaronovitch, who far from being an expert on Hamas has quite a reputation as a thorough bullshitter. He's part of the British neocon grouping known as the "Decents", who are very popular with some editors here. You might find this website helps understand why I laugh at their using him as a source. Grace Note 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)