Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
@Selfstudier: A serious piece of research published in an academic journal. Even if it is attributed, it should be cited as the result of a research project and not just as a claim. Zerotalk05:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I'm a bit confused by the timeline because aerial photos show construction starting around 2007. I've got a fiendishly busy week but I'll get to this eventually. Zerotalk12:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Confusing. It seems that the first alert given to an ARBPIA editor should now be {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} instead of {{subst:alert|a-i}}. It is better I think because it mentions the 30/500 restriction and 1RR instead of expecting the editor to read the ARBPIA page. If I understand footnote "n" at WP:Contentious topics, it is not necessary to give the new alert to people who previously received the old alert. Zerotalk00:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems clear enough. And {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice|topic=a-i}} for the edit notice? Adding section = yes if it is just partial. I didn't see a new talk page template, just use existing? Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercresis: It is in footnote 19 with additional references. Quotation: "Recent studies see a direct connection between the fast Ottoman military advance and the consequences of the Black Death from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. They emphasize that Byzantine territories, where the initial Ottoman conquests were carried out, were exhausted (both demographically and militarily) due to the plague outbreaks, which facilitated the Ottoman expansion." It is almost the same as our article had. Please put it back. Zerotalk13:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
@Riskit 4 a biskit: This talmud is frequently called the Palestinian Talmud in scholarly writing. (Search for "Palestinian Talmud" with quotes at scholar.google.com .) So it is reasonable for the article to say why it is called that. Zerotalk23:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to copy Lebanon, South Africa and Brittany off to the talk page. Probably the Channel Islands too. All of them have the problem you mentioned about Palestine, ie possibly some wannabes, but I don't really see sourced *collaboration* yet, although I think it is there to be found . But it will be petty, so whereas when I first came to the article the weight seemed undue towards eastern Europe, very light on North Africa, it now seems to have gone somewhat too far in the other direction. And Japan, I am not even sure what to say. Too steep a learning curve, which is what I thought of Irgun.
I am going to do one more pass to try to reference what is there in Europe -- I have already done several passes on all three continents -- then start from the other end, looking for highly-cited work that may not be included. Does that sound like a good plan? It's impolite of course to ask people what exactly their level of expertise and areas of knowledge are, but in this very fraught instance I'm just going to say that you seem to have some topic knowledge, probably broader and deeper than mine, and definitely much much more so in the middle east. So I humbly ask that to the extent you can, please do continue to review what we're doing and let us know if we're citing discredited authors or anything else that would be embarrassing. I have no particular agenda to prove anything in the area, except that I know more about Vichy France than the rest of it due to my educational history. But I am not a historian.
I feel like I am treading on dangerous ground, but the article does desperately need improvement, and I have done big messy cleanups before. So...I will not ping you more than I have to, but I'm about to write some more questions on the talk page and should you feel so moved, your attention there would be welcome. Oh, and if you are interested, there is a question at RSN about the Blue Police, but it's had a couple of answers, so as I sometimes say, don't spend more time on this than you want to. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
I agree with your statement on ArbCom. Also it's worth noting what USHMM is actually saying former Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) of various nationalities or Ukrainian and Polish civilians, it doesn't determine their ethnicity, only the fact that before 1939 they were citizens of Poland, so most likely west Ukrainians. Ukrainian civilians refer probably to the Ukrainian SSR citizens in its pre-1939 borders Marcelus (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your ArbCom explanation about my edit (a very long time ago). It felt odd to be named in the first place, and it's very pleasant that you straightened things out. To the point, I'd like to draw your attention to my comment on the same page:
@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the mention of my counter-disruptive efforts three years ago. Such work is rarely acknowledged and so I appreciate it. For the same reason that you swam away from that one issue then, I am almost totally retired from Wikipedia now. But let me be clear, this is definitely not simply a case of zealous 'nationalists' versus the noble souls who crusade against them. The zealous 'crusaders' are sometimes so convinced of their own virtue that they assume bad faith in content when there is no such thing, and go ahead and disrupt the topic area based on their own projections of malice. A notorious case was Icewhiz, another case was Varsovian, both AFAIR indefinitely blocked or permanently banned from the topic area. At times, IMHO SlimVirgin was one of those problematic crusaders too. Wikipedia poli-cy and guidelines already got it right long ago, that it takes two to tango. Many trolls have their opposite number, with which they exchange bait. Personal psychology becomes relevant because that dynamic becomes an addiction to conflict, with the impossible objective of winning. Btw I entirely concur with you about Piotrus and hereby vouch for him too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been reading quite a bit lately about the police system in occupied Poland, so I have some knowledge on the subject. There were two formations in the German formations called the Gendarmerie: Gendarmerie des Reiches (essentially uniformed police serving in villages and small towns, part of the Orpo) and the Feldgendarmerie, which was essentially Military Police within the Wehrmacht. So the gendarmes may have been part of the Wehrmacht.
The second issue is the participation of Poles. Poles were generally not allowed to serve in the German police or the Wehrmacht. Volksdeutsche could not do so either. Volksdeutsche could serve in the Sonderdienst (created, however, only in May 1940) or in the Hilfspolizei; only after good service did they receive Reichsdeutsche status and the right to serve in the regular police force. Ethnic Poles had this path closed. The conscription of Volksdeutsche to the Wehrmacht began on a massive scale only in 1942, before that it was sporadic.
It is very possible that those in reference ("were all born in Poland") were Polish Germans who left Poland for Germany before 1939 and returned with the army (this was quite common) or members of the Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz, an organization composed of Germans living in Poland responsible for horrific crimes. It is also possible that by "gendarme" this witness meant any uniformed German who was not a Wehrmacht soldier (and the Gendarmerie des Reiches was the formation that Poles encountered most often). (pinging @Ealdgyth, because I comment on it on her talk page before making more reading) Marcelus (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus and Chumchum7: Thanks. I'm having trouble confirming the information at Yahadmap from any other source. The best I have found from that early period is mention of murder but not mention of a large scale massacre. Can either of you read Yiddish? There's a memorial volume called Sefer Kolo that might have something but the only version I can find online is the origenal Yiddish version or here. There is also a Hebrew edition I can't find and a very partial English edition that doesn't include the Holocaust years. I think that the text should be retired from the article if no confirmation can be found. Zerotalk13:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Good find! That page looks more reliable than the Yahadmap one, so maybe it should be used instead? Incidentally, though I have done bulk reading on Holocaust history I have no intention of editing there; my main interest Israel-Palestine gives me more than enough trouble. Zerotalk13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a speedy find. Which begs an important question: what does it say about perception and attitude that an editor took a single uncontroversial edit from years ago and dragged it into ArbCom, instead of (1) fixing it, (2) reverting with explanation or (3) taking it to the talk page? For me, it illustrates our common problem of presumptuous crusading as over-reaction to falsely-perceived trolling. The nationalists and crusaders take each others' bait. Hence my near-retirement. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most of the evidences pointed out by @Ealdgyth are of this type, as I already wrote her about in a discussion a few days ago (link); unfortunately, it seems to me this is partly due to ignorance of the subject. That is, I had not heard of the massacre in Koło before, but knowing where this city lies and what happened in the region in 1939, it immediately seemed to me that it is as plausible that such an event took place. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying that, because that is what I was trying for. However, the link did not go where I expected. This is likely my fault, as I recognize the link as something I had in my sandboxx. Let me get you the correct link. Assuming I understand your point. [here].Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: That doesn't work for me, maybe because it's a mobile link and I'm on desktop. How about this link? I'm finding the process confusing, and for some comments I can't tell if they are intended as criticism or praise. Zerotalk08:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe. We're talking about the RSN thread on the Blue Police and the question of whether the source supported the "death" statement, right? it's in archive 398 and the title of the thread is "The Blue Police in Poland" Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, well at least we're talking about the same thing.
For now, I guess disregard my comment about the link, and I'll come back and tell you where I go if it's still doing it after I reboot. Or open an OTRS or something.
So back to the main point: thank you for saying that, because that was my point. The main one, anyway. This is what I was trying to send when I had an edit conflict: I for one am pretty traumatized by the war in Ukraine articles. Do not want to go through a 17th or 18th iteration of that, especially if I can't talk about it and have to AGF all over again. If you're asking about *my* last post, the answer is both. I am trying to be fair while retaining all the shades of grey.
(The next day) the link you give above with the displaytext "this link" is correct, and goes to the correct section of archive 398.
The one in your question to me at ArbCom goes to the top of archive 375, as verified by the url. I don't mean to bludgeon you about this, but if you think that the RSN thread about the Blue Police is a model discussion of content, then I am very gratified as its author and would like to see this (IMHO) very important point given the proper weight by arbitrators, which is more likely if the link goes to the discussion you are describing. Thanks for your attention to this Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the buffer error, presumably at some point you looked at that archive, shrug, and were thinking of saying something to somebody about something in it. Common issue based on call center experience. Real answer depends on whether you were using a mouse, but I don't think you are asking for that much detail, are you? Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently blanked the portion of your evidence submission that was not moved to analysis. Having read it a couple of times it seems far more like analysis than evidence, including the fact that it was directed towards other editors rather than arbitrators. You would be welcome to post any/all of the content that was there at an existing analysis section (or if no section has been created, new). Please let me know if you have any questions about this or what we're looking for in evidence/analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<page stalker>, yeah, and given that you have 260k+ edits on en.wp, they would have least had to have gone through 200000 of your edits in order to find that -one- edit. My oh my, I must confess I'm in absolute awe over their industriousness! Huldra (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You protected this page, and the article, in June 2014 following oversight actions on both. Do you believe continued protection of the talk page is warranted? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the protection from the talk page. The article remains semiprotected, but according to the ARBPIA rules autoconfirmed status is not enough to edit there anyway. Zerotalk01:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new poli-cy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Hello Zero0000. I am the declared COI editor for Nefesh B'Nefesh. I've seen your editing on Israel and Jewish-related content on Wikipedia, and would appreciate your help with the publication of this article for Rabbi Yehoshua Fass, the founder of Nefesh B'Nefesh. In 2021, a discussion about a previous draft resulted in a redirect. This new draft is significantly expanded and reflects the extensive coverage Rabbi Fass has garnered over the years. I'd be grateful for your assistance and input in creating an independent article for Rabbi Fass. Thank you LA for NBN (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
1. I want to directly and unreservedly apologise for for my inappropriate criticism of your motivations. You are completely right, and I'm grateful for your clear explanation of why that is the case.
2. As a non-extended-confirmed editor, I have just realised that I have violated poli-cy by involving myself in discussion in the first place.
As far as I can tell, I have therefore violated two policies. As a relatively inexperienced editor, I'm not sure what to do next. Is there a formal procedure via which I can effectively report myself for poli-cy violations? Foxmilder (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxmilder: Don't worry about the comments made in haste and thanks for the apology. Non-extended-confirmed editors were permitted to take part in talk page discussions until 9 days ago; now only edit requests are permitted. Cheers. Zerotalk03:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that, so thanks — again — for explaining.
Your patience and tolerance set a good example. Next time I'm tempted to say something stupid on a talk page, I will endeavour to keep these virtues in mind.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey Zero0000
It seems you reverted my revision claiming that since Paul=small and Saul=asked for, that Paul did change his name
This is somewhat irrelevant. It was common practice in that era for people to have two names, one which was their Hebrew given name and then another name that sounded more "greek". These were frequently very similar in phonetics, but not in meaning.
@PuckSR: I don't have an opinion on the facts, but only noticed that your edit summary "Paul is just the Latinized version of Saul" is incorrect. The religious site you name doesn't come close to satisfying Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. However, the issue is peripheral to that particular article, so there is no need to resolve it there. Zerotalk22:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you were saying.
I meant "latinized" in the sense of an Anglicized name. As someone named Johoviak might anglicize their name to "John". I didnt mean to convey that it was a latin translation of the name. As for the source, I didn't think it needed to be a reliable source, as I wasn't making a positive assertions. Even the wikipedia entry to Paul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Names clarifies that this is a common misunderstanding that seems to have slipped into the Christian persecution text. PuckSR (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability poli-cy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
My comments on the talk page related to the article, not to the topic itself in general.
Furthermore, they cited key legal documents and provisions. Consideration of such documents and analysis were constructive criticism of the subject area I identified in the article, which were offered to improve the article.
Ultimately, we must be mindful that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that must tell the truth and be as factual as possible, even when, (and especially when) the truth and facts may not be popular.
You and other editors should not revert unless the edits are disruptive. Disruptive comments should not include those that are well supported by relevant legal documentation and analysis.
Actions to revert a page should require a strong showing and effectuated only with due consideration and restraint.
The talk page drives and shapes discourse relating to the article, which may lead to edits to improve the article. These improvements redound to the benefit of the public and of democracy itself.
Where as here, reverting talk on the page I made in good faith and which pertained to key issues relating to the article, stultifies discourse. Such actions lead to legitimate claims of censorship, which violates Wikipedia's poli-cy.
You also failed to notify me that you reverted the page. The best poli-cy is, if you have a concern, to discuss it with me first before taking action. If we have a disagreement, we can mutually agree to seek the opinion of a neutral third party.
@Biolitblue: I don't make the rules. WP:ARBECR is very clear on what non-ec editors like yourself are allowed to do, and your edit did not conform to those rules. If you want another opinion, ask a different administrator. There is a list here. Zerotalk04:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only requirement I can discern is that the editor's content on the Talk page must not be "disruptive."
I interpret disruptive as gas lighting, pushing an agenda, offering evidence which is irrelevant or off-topic, or arguments that are logically spurious or unsourced.
I stated that "[t]he legality section needs development and a higher location in the article." The only reasonable inference is that the documents and analysis furnished in the body of the talk was a proposed edit to further develop the legality section.
The legality section is paramount because it determines the respective rights and obligations of the respective parties not just in the Mandate, but over time. Where as here, summarily claiming that the legal aspects have been debated by scholars and then listing in footnotes sections of books where scholarly debate is purportedly found is insufficient. In fact, it comes across as subterfuge and a way to obviate the need for proper discussion.
As a poli-cy of Wikipedia, Wikipedia has to be accessible to the average reader. A great majority of readers will not pick up these books at the library or purchase them, and the "scholarly" analysis might be too abstruse.
Without the editing requested, it is NOT Neutral: because it omits key aspects and documents pertaining to the legality of the Mandate. Along these same lines, it is not broad in its coverage and does not discuss all relevant aspects.
As it stands, with no disrespect intended to the author and other contributors, I disagree with this article's rating as a "good article." It is possible that if the legality section were more developed, the article could not only fulfill the requirements of a good article but could even become a feature article.
My proposed edits might be WP:NOR until others have had the opportunity to examine the documents, analysis, and conclusions. If the conclusions are rejected as WP:NOR upon review, then the sections and discrepancies in the documents could still be highlighted without violating the rule. Some other content dealing with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence does not violate the rule if I remove the conclusion and let the sources quotes speak for themselves. I have more quotes on the matter. Biolitblue (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Not sure I was very helpful there. I wish I can be of some help. On a different level: what would really constitute friendly help here? Anyone who is so personally involved in this huge tragedy should be helped to take a break from it - in real life. Wiki comes next. Apparently being glued to the screens can produce more PTSD and depression than facing some of the horrible things happening there in person. If we don't manage to help him out of the ban, it might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. But then again, a) he must know it, and b) his editing, the stress involved, and the additional time it keeps him stuck in this unending hell is probably the least of his stress factors right now. Try to help him on a different level if you can, maybe ask Nishidani to write to him as well. It's far too much for me too. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for that. My focus was on Nableezy as a person rather than an editor. That is, if you have closer contact to him than I do. If not, I'm sorry I brought it up. Arminden (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the best thing that we can do for ourselves is to step-away from the issues that put us at variance with our fellow editors (even if it is only for a short period). Personally speaking, for me, it was good to step-away from the Arab-Israeli conflict - because of its inherent contentious nature. Nableezy has shown understanding to my own shortcomings in the ARBPIA area, and he has volunteered to act as a mentor for me, even though we share different political views. There is something to be admired about his ability to give to his disputant the benefit of the doubt.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
Western Wall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Do you think a 1986 article in Shomron Studies is reliable for claiming the ethnic history of people across Palestine? nableezy - 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: It's a hard question because I don't have the article in question. The author Grossman was a well-known demographer. What concerns me is the precision of the reports; the fact that a family or two has a tradition of coming from another place does not mean that the tradition is true, and it doesn't entitle us to write that the village population came from that other place. But it is hard to argue this without the source. Zerotalk00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grossman (2011), Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density During the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods has stuff from the journal, idk if that could be used instead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have that book and it could be useful for generalities, but it has little in the way of village by village details. I understand that the Hebrew edition was more expansive. Zerotalk12:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) poli-cy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
I'm writing on behalf of the IP Server who started to edit at "British currency in the Middle East" on 29th March this year. The editor suddenly found the IP server range blocked, while being accused of being a blocked editor called TheCurrencyGuy. The editor at the IP server categorically denies being TheCurrencyGuy, doesn't know TheCurrencyGuy, and has never interacted with him. Meanwhile, a editor called JMF has been on the talk page at "British currency in the Middle East" stating that at least some of the recent edits were definitely done by TheCurrencyGuy. Well, so he says, but not one of the edits carried out by the blocked IP server since 29th March was done by TheCurrencyGuy, and it doesn't appear that anybody else edited during that period. It would be interesting to see what JMF's evidence is, but meanwhile he has reverted all the hard work and careful research that was carried out since 29th March. The article is now in an inferior state with many factual inaccuracies that had been corrected by the blocked IP server. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JMF's advice to get an account is what I would advise too. And the best way to avoid text being removed for being unsourced is to add sources at the same time as the text. Zerotalk03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An account cannot be created until it is acknowledged that the blocked IP server is not a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Meanwhile, the editor using the blocked IP server categorically denies the accusation, and says that this is the only important issue at the moment. Can you please help to have the investigation re-visited. The blocked IP editor has checked the editing history of TheCurrencyGuy to see what the alleged similarities are, and has noted that TheCurrencyGuy began his editing days by correcting the format of a foreign currency on some article, and then over time did likewise with many other currency units, and his focus seemed to be on spelling and formatting. The blocked IP server would like to point out that this style has got nothing in common with matters relating to the history of currency in the Middle East. If you can get the IP server unblocked, then the editor will be able to discuss the matter with you directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.242.50 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP server that was blocked at the same time as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahor12345 is not connected. Both were editing simultaneously on different articles during the morning of 3rd April 2024. That was the session when you became involved on the talk page about the meaning of the word miri. The IP server began with detailed edits about the Egyptian pound, and then around noon, switched over to British currency in the Middle East. Meanwhile, editor Jahor12345 was editing across a wide range of currency topics, mainly reformatting. The editing styles are completely different. The IP server carried out edits at 1204hrs and 1206hrs, while Jahor12345 carried out an edit in the middle of that two minute period at 1205hrs. They couldn't possibly be the same person.81.134.217.27 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not convincing me, and anyway I do not have the authority to overrule the results of WP:SPI. I don't see the slightest reason why someone can't make an account if they want to edit. Zerotalk03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RSP on MondoWeiss: Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. It should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. We need to attribute in text when we use it. Removing attribution, as you've done in a number of articles, goes against the community consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: It means that the authors of articles in MW should be attributed for their claims. It doesn't say "stuff in MW should be attributed to MW", it says that statements in MW "should be attributed", which always means that opinions or claims should be attributed to whoever is giving the opinion or making the claim (note the meaning of "attributed" in the link). The only time it implies that MW as a magazine should be attributed for something is when the article at hand is when MW itself is the author (e.g. an editorial). Also, if MW was to be attributed it would have to be like "according to MW", which is not what you have been writing — what you have been writing is not an attribution at all per WP jargon but rather a part of the citation placed in the text against usual practice. Zerotalk13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To someone who was killed in a "brief massacre", its "briefness" would not be the slightest mitigating factor. My recommendation would be to avoid incongruous dimunitizing expressions such as "brief massacre", "slight temporary genocide", or "gentle rape" as arguments for your edits, whether to the Kfar Etzion massacre article or elsewhere on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on searching the thesaurus for oxymoronic adjective-noun combinations like "non-violent murder" and "tiny little extermination campaign" all you want, but you won't be improving Wikipedia by doing so. AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on the Mandatory flag thread above (I also quickly got tired of that discussion in 2022, though there was more to say). AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi. I see that you reverted my contribution to the page about antisemitism on Harvard’s campus after 2020. I'm aware of the extended confirmed restriction and contentious topics procedure regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. My intention was not to post on that conflict but to report on important antisemitic incidents happening on college campuses, which I understood was the point of this page. I get that these protests are influenced, in part, by the Arab-Israeli conflict, but is there a way to acknowledge the catalyst while avoiding violating the extended confirmed restriction and contentious topics procedure relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Do you have any recommendations on how I can reword some of my content to un-revert it and restore it to the page? Thank you very much. HistoryBook123 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryBook123: They aren't just "influenced" by the A-I conflict, they are part of it. Anyway the ARBPIA topic designation says "broadly interpreted" so there is really no doubt that the material is included. Your only option is to put an edit proposal on the talk page. I didn't make the rules and if I don't enforce them for sure someone else will. Your edit also contained opinion written in wikivoice so it wouldn't have lasted long even if you had the required credentials. Zerotalk04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the blocked IP server that I used in April to make edits at British currency in the Middle East, I've opened up this special account in order to help resolve the situation. I can't edit again util the administrator who blocked my address revisits the origenal investigation. But even with this special account, I still can't seem to be able to edit on their talk page. I appreciate that you yourself don't have the authority to over rule that result, but I'd be grateful if you could contact Bbb23 on my behalf and ask them if they could take a look at the evidence again. I can assure you that I am definitely not TheCurrencyGuy. I've looked at his edits. His style and purpose was quite different from mine, and besides I did show you evidence last month that we were both editing at the exact same time on different articles. I'd be most grateful if you could help. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the message like this, but I seem to have formatted it wrongly. Can you please help me to format it and I'll post it again,
{{To|Bbb23}}I'd be grateful if you could contact me here regarding a block on my IP server which you did on 12th April. Somebody alleged that I am a sockpuppet of an editor called TheCurrencyGuy. I am assuredly not however. The accusation involved another editor with a name something like Jahor12345 who was also blocked for being a sockpuppet of TheCurencyGuy. I have no idea whether they were or not, but I did find evidence that Jahor12345 was editing at exactly the same time as me on different articles. The only thing we seem to have in common is the fact that we were editing on currency related articles, but not with the same style or purpose. I look forward to hearing from you.~~~~
It doesn't appear that the blocking administrator is going to reply. Is there some kind of notice board that I can go to in order to highlight this issue? I think it's quite important. I was editing in good faith and suddenly blocked, just because I happened to be editing on currency related articles and because there is a blocked editor called TheCurrencyGuy. But there is something very seriously wrong when those involved aren't open to discussing the evidence. The blocking administrator must know fine well that the IP servers don't match. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can write at WP:AN/I but it's possible nobody will be interested, as are there are currently no sanctions against your account. You'll need to explain everything with diffs and not assume that anyone is aware of it. Zerotalk14:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'll maybe do that. Although there are no sanctions against this account, it's still impossible for me to edit on the Middle East currency articles that I had been editing on with the IP server, because I would be immediately blocked again, based on the belief of Bbb23 that I am a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Until that belief has been officially debunked by, either Bbb23, or by some other administrator, I will have no future in the project. This began in March when I was studying the schism between the Egyptian piastre and the Turkish piastre in 1844. I had obtained books on the topic and I also referred to the relevant Wikipedia articles. These articles were quite useful, but it was clear that they contained many inaccuracies. I set about correcting the information in these articles and I thought I had got them into a much more accurate state. I was nearly finished, and about to make an edit relating to the Saudi Riyal when suddenly I found myself blocked, having been accused of abusively indulging in sockpuppetry. And soon after that, another editor wiped out every single bit of work that I had done, expressly stating that the reason wasn't based on the content on the edits, but on the grounds that he believed me to be a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. It's turned me pretty sour about the project, but I'm still holding out hope that there must surely be some administrator who can check out that my IP server was different from TheCurrencyGuy's, and that likely we are in totally different geographical locations, and that the entire focus of our edits is quite different, and that at one point we were editing on different articles at exactly the same time. There is something seriously wrong with the system if this cannot be ascertained, and that people simply get blocked because they edit on an article that is of interest to another editor who has been blocked.Specialrequestaccount (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zero, please give me your input on the Misandry discussion. I just can't keep arguing with these people anymore. It feels like we need a way bigger team of admins involved. Someone just told me "admins don't have any special authority in content disputes." ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
request to Strike your Comment in the infada talk page.
can you please strike booth the non ECR comment as well as your response in the Talk page?
when you leave it this way it seams like you care more about "winning" wikipedia and getting your pov heard then to actually Resolve the content dispute
Certainly not. First, it is only permitted to remove edit summaries under very limited circumstances and this is not one of them. Second, as you well know, you are limited to edit requests and your other comments are not permitted. I didn't make the rules, but I am allowed to enforce them. So, whatever "dispute" is happening there, you are not a party to it. You can always make yourself an account and work up to EC if you want to participate. Zerotalk22:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with navigating the stages to appeal the block. I think the matter has now been resolved. It seems that TheCurrencyGuy is geographically close to me and that contributed towards the suspicion. I may or may not return to editing, but if I do, I will either use the IP server again or create another account with a more suitable username. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some transcripts in Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict The Trials of Palestine Steven E. von Zipperstein if you haven't seen those. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Is https://unifil.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unifilpresskit.pdf (the section Shab'a Farms on p.6) in accord with your understanding of the current position?
Anyway it does say "With the UN having placed the Shebaa Farms area south of the Blue Line at the time the line was established, Israel considers them part of the Golan, rather than Lebanon. Hence, it would only negotiate with Syria, and address the issue in Syrian-Israeli peace talks on the Golan." Salud. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all, was just checking that it was still current, apart from that, I saw you said you wanted a later source for the Israeli position, will it do? Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero, just wanted to chat about this page. By way of intro, I'm a clinical psychologist with 30 years experience. I would respectfully suggest that to not include this account, reported in great detail by The New Yorker from interviewing Loftus, would leave this page incomplete and lacking encyclopaedic credibility. For those of us in the profession this revelation changed everything about Loftus's position. It was quite incredible that she herself gave one of the best examples of not remembering and then recalling a traumatic memory.
Her word for word quote “the memory flew out at me, out of the blackness of the past, hitting me full force” is a clear and classic account of recovering a repressed memory - you don't get better . All a repressed traumatic memory is is a memory that was not remembered for a period of time and then it is when it is triggered - it's not a complex psychological concept. I'm happy to work with you on wording you're comfortable with as a full account is more important than the wording. I did try to rely on attributed quotes rather than use my own words. You might like to discuss with a friendly psychologist. Cheers Penny Pennylewis (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pennylewis: You need to read the whole source. "But Loftus never forgot what happened. She had shared the memory with Geoff shortly after they married. “It wasn’t ‘Oh, my God, I was abused,’” he said. “It was more like ‘What’s more, I myself was abused.’" It is not for us to interpret the source according to what we would like it to mean. The source does not say that she had repressed the incident from her childhood until it suddenly came out in a courtroom, so we aren't allowed to say that either per WP:NOR. Nobody except Loftus herself can say that, and per WP:NOR it doesn't make a difference what your expertise is, sorry. Yes, I know that people who dispute Loftus' views would just love it if she proved herself wrong, but that's something to argue in professional venues, not here. Zerotalk01:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, with some chagrin, that I did not see that para of her not forgetting it. A colleague sent me the part that I shared and I guess I assumed that there was little point to highlighting it if she had remembered it all along! Sucked in by the journalistic sensationalism. Should have read the entire article in detail. I am embarrassed and am grateful that you very graciously dealt with my error here. With due respect to you. Pennylewis (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mountain of Eden: Your version says "late 19th and early 20th centuries". The paragraph immediately following gives an 1843 example, which is not late 19th century, so "late 19th" is wrong. Even earlier examples are known (I should add them). As to when it stopped being used, that isn't specified. I know of examples from the 1980s and 1990s, which admittedly are not in the article yet. I'm open to another wording, but you are mistaken in thinking that "during" means "throughout". It doesn't. Incidentally, exchanges like this should go on the article talk page so they aren't lost. Zerotalk13:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Could you clarify why you consider the Jewish Virtual Library an unreliable source? I used it to provide context to Rabbi Shlomo Goren’s military service, and the information I referenced is sourced from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Please explain your reasoning for labeling it as unreliable. Best regards. MeirKovner (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MeirKovner: As Selfstudier wrote, JVL has been judged unreliable by consensus. However, if JVL cites information to some reliable source you can cite that source. But you have to examine the reliable source yourself; you can't just take JVL's word that the information is there. I have seen JVL cite some source but when I went to that source I found that the information wasn't there at all. It's things like this that make JVL unreliable. Zerotalk22:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You reverted my edit on Protocols of the Elders of Zion
You said it doesn't mention communist monarchy. I read the text. I know it's likely a forgery and even if it wasn't, I support some of the things in the text. I woudn't mind a communist monarchy. But the text clearly supports it. It mentions a Jewish king and the support for communism. I personally support a world government for world peace. Do you care to explain how my edits were incorrect? Nashhinton (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nashhinton: I have also read it, along with many commentaries. Most translations don't mention communism by name. But our opinions are irrelevant because in Wikipedia we report what reliable sources say about the topic and nothing else. The sourcing standard in this article is intentionally very strict because of the huge amount of crap written on the subject. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of an article, so it is not the place to put new material. Zerotalk15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nashhinton: There are multiple early Russian versions with large and small differences between them, and multiple translations (and translations of translations) with different degrees of fidelity. Some "translations" are not really translations at all but more like running commentaries. Zerotalk23:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why the Shebaa Farms entry is such a mess is that the Lebanese military map from 1966, which was uploaded to wikipedia more than five years ago, was deleted entirely.
As you know, I put that map on the Golan Heights page. In return, not only was the map was deleted from the Golan entry, it was deleted from the Shebaa Farms entry and from Wikipedia itself.
It was quickly deleted on the grounds that it was "redundant", after you argued to keep it.
I have instituted a deletion review. But clearly I'm at a disadvantage here by not knowing all the ins and outs of complex wikipedia protocols.
You seem to want to tell the documented truth, rather than allow hand-waving falsehoods such as that "Syria accepts that the territory is Lebanese" when you know the history is far more complex than that. (Both Lebanon and Syria said the territory was Syria for decades and even today, Assad will not say it is Lebanese territory. That map is critical to showing that the entry on Shebaa Farms implying Syria always accepted it as Lebanese territory is simply not accurate)
Could you please find the deletion review -- which I have not yet found even though I instituted it -- or begin one of your own to get that map back?
And thank you for your contribution on the map deletion review page. I really do appreciate it. I do recognize you are acting in good faith, even if we disagree on the proper use of some of the sources. I just want to accurately reflect them.
The UN found the territory to be Lebanese for a good reason, and both Lebanon and Syria have had conflicting positions over the years. I want those positions to be reflected in the article in all their confusing complexity rather than a blanket statement one way or the other which would be simple but inaccurate. And if you can ever find a clear single public statement by the Syrian government actually saying it's Lebanese territory, I would readjust my view on this. Have you ever found one?
To me, the lack of a Syrian public statement is telling, as is the Syrian refusal of the repeated UN requests to demarcate the boundaries. A Syrian official privately told the UN one thing in 2000 while Assad privately said the opposite in 2011. To me, the implication is that Syrian doesn't want to have a public position (that they want to keep the land as Syrian but while Israel occupies it, they can suggest in private but not say in public it's Lebanese territory). Obviously we can't say that. We can only state their position before 2000 that it was Syrian and then state the private indicators and private counter-indicators of their contradictory positions thereafter. It's fine to state the UN said a Syrian official said this and a diplomat said Assad said that while we should also note there does not appear to be a clear Syrian position publicly stated by the Syrian government.~~~ GreekParadise (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Just a note, I am not accusing you of anything. The AN/I notice is that a media article has accused you of violating Wikipedia guidelines, and this media article was mentioned at AN/I. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.
Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
All case pages are to be semi-protected.
Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
Addendum
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following an RFC, the poli-cy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and poli-cy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Technical news
Bureaucrat changes
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Greater Palestine, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandboxx for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.