User talk:Nableezy/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 58

ECP

You should just revert IPs engaging in content discussion, drop them a quick explainer on ECP, and report them if they continue to take part in discussions establishing consensus on article content.

Your effort is wasted because their thoughts on the content wom't be considered when it comes to deciding on how the article reads. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thank you. nableezy - 02:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I saw Nableezy's comments on the talk page in question on this matter and came here to inquire about where they were getting the assertion that "Non-extended users cannot contribute to consensus discussion on ARBPIA articles". I've reviewed ARBPIA4 and I see no reference to such a sanction--and indeed, I would have expected there to have been an absolute furor of argument if ArbCom had tried to create such a rule whole-cloth, limiting WP:ANYONECANEDIT in such a way without a strong community mandate for such.

And I've just reviewed ECP as well to make sure I am up to date on any changes there, and I see no evidence of such a rule expressed there either. Rather ECP says only that extended confirmed protection can be applied to CTOP articles, and that if it is, non-extended confirmed users can use edit requests to propose changes (because of course they can). But it doesn't say anything about their contributions to consensus discussions being limited to requesting changes, nor does it imply anything remotely similar. As far as I know, there is no community consensus limiting contributions of non-ec editors to discussions on talk pages for articles under any type of page protection, CTOP or no. I think you might both be labouring under a misconception here, but I suppose it's possible I've missed some sort of recent development somewhere. If so, can you point me to where this consensus is codified? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction and WP:ECR explain this. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

The original text was amended a couple weeks ago to make it explicit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, ScottishFinnishRadish; I appreciate your cluing me in to where this change occurred. I have to say (and hopefully Nableezy will forgive my getting on the soapbox on their talk page), but I have serious misgivings about ArbCom promulgating that particular rule by themselves. Less because of the result (I suppose there are arguments either way) and more because they chose to abrogate such a core and founding community priority so broadly on their own onus, with the input of just a few members of the community. I'm beginning to wonder if any permutation of ArbCom these days sees any practical limits to their prerogative to legislate policy unilaterally. Something like this really should only have been done with major consultation of the community: from the looks of it, there was no parallel discussion at WP:VP or even a listing on WP:CD? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There was discussion at WP:ARCA to clarify the original decision. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, but in my opinion the involvement of less than a dozen editors is insufficient consultation of the community for a change so broad and impactful. This really should have been floated before the community in a more visible way, either by way of a satellite discussion or at least a CD posting. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I didnt really support the further restricting of non-ec editors as there were some that definitely were constructive, but it was getting drowned out. Despite the usual take from the media on a "few bad apples", the phrase actually ends with "spoils the bunch" (at least thats how I was taught it as a kid in the late 1900s). nableezy - 17:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm of two minds on the underlying matter. On the one hand, I definitely feel that there's a risk of baby out with the bathwater here, to use another old idiom. Content editing restrictions are one thing, but restricting even consensus discussion, and specifically on contentious topics, to only established editors feels like a bridge too far to me. There's more than a whiff of "we, the regulars, should have exclusive input" elitism in this, as well as an element of WP:CREEP towards the goal of a vocal minority on the project to eventually restrict all editing to registered users. On the other hand, I also understand the perspective that the corps of veteran editors is spread increasingly thin across acrimonious areas, fighting disruption from SPAs and other bad actors. I imagine a true community discussion on this matter would have brought a variety of perspectives and that it might have been a very close run thing, however the community came down.

But it's the fact that this discussion was so insular and the change promoted in such a cavalier fashion without respect for how this impacts longstanding community principles that really worries me--much more so than any outcome on the motion, frankly. I feel like ArbCom is hitting a critical mass in presumption of authority the last couple of years, and something's gotta give. Or perhaps it's better said that I think it would better serve the overall health of the community if something does give.

Mind you, I've traditionally been a supporter of a broad remit for that body, but I think we're hitting a tipping point of needing to claw back their power to promote broad changes to the project without consultation and approval of the community, in light of some power-grabby decisions in recent years--or more specifically, the laissez-faire approach to what is essentially unilateral policy making. The Committee was never meant to have this kind of power to shape such project-defining rules under their own initiative, as I see it. I think many more presumptive acts like this and a big, big conversation is coming. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well things like RFCs and move requests were already restricted. The mood isn’t restricting it to the regulars, it’s more a. You need to have some basic understanding of our policies to meaningfully participate and most the influx of new editors did not have that, and b. There’s still a shit ton of socking and canvassing going on. nableezy - 19:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the point I was going to make. There are a tremendous amount of socks being blocked, and a lot of the other editing was still disruptive. When you're dealing with what might be the most fraught topic on Wikipedia dealing with extra bullshit has a lot of drawbacks, from opportunity cost to higher likelihood of snapping at a good faith editor because you're reaching your wit's end.

Sometimes you have to go with the least bad option. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm very sympathetic to that view. Now mind you, if this had been put more properly before the community rather than having been implemented through Arbitrator fiat, I think I may have just narrowly come down on the other side of the cost-benefit analysis. Afterall, we already have substantial procedural and technical tools for dealing with these sorts of disruption, and closers are already entitled to discount IP/new user perspectives where appropriate (as when a large number of IPs show up with suspiciously uniform views). I honestly don't know that we get all that much that improves the situation from this model, relative to the pretty steep price of removing all productive non-EC perspectives.

But at the end of the day it's a close issue for me, I can endorse elements of both perspectives, and both seem basically like reasonable outlooks. Again, the fundamental issue I have here is not the result, but how this decision was arrived at. This is the first time in the history of the project that all non-EC editors have been de facto banned from even participating in the dialogue around particular (and frankly, massively broad) encyclopedic topics. The first such rule that automatically lumps all constructive editors in this category in together as persona non grata for these topics, by default, rather than just those who have demonstrated disruption. That is a major, major threshold and cultural change away from a core project commitment that still enjoys broad community support.

I just do not think a matter like that is best decided by just twelve editors, nor do I feel it is within ArbCom's purview to make such a decision unilaterally. Whatever the right outcome is here, the resolution of that question and a change this drastic should have been put before the community. If because of the scale of the implications and kniock-on effects if nothing else. So this is a worrisome precedent to me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally think there are better hills to die on; we as a community have already basically accepted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area cannot be effectively administered with our normal procedures, and we have already ceded to ArbCom basically limitless authority to manage that topic area so that the administrators we do have that are willing to step in to keep things somewhat in line with our behavioral policies are not overwhelmed with so much low-level crap that they are unable to deal with the more complicated problems. I understand the frustration, at the time they were discussing this at ARCA there was one user with like 300 edits who I saw being completely constructive and I wanted them to be able to continue being so (and this was a user that I feel comfortable placing firmly on the "pro-Israel" side of the spectrum). But there is still so. much. bullshit that happens in these articles everyday. I have literally zero doubt that on basically every RFC, move request, or AFD that what we now know to be AndresHerutJaim, as יניב הורון (Yaniv) was just a sock of his, is mass emailing at least a dozen accounts to get them to vote. I have zero doubt that he is doing the same for various editing disputes across a range of pages. 30/500 isnt an insurmountable barrier, otherwise we wouldnt still be getting NoCal100 and Icewhiz socks regularly, but it does at least quiet some of the noise down. As far as to the pretty steep price of removing all productive non-EC perspectives, I really think that is overestimating that price. Most of the commentary is not all that productive. Yes, some of it is, and the rules still allow for edit requests for anybody that wants to make a constructive comment. But most of it is bare voting and forumming. nableezy - 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree as to many of those particulars. I just think those are points that could (and should) have been put before the community at large, rather than ArbCom taking it upon themselves to set a rule of such impact, that abrogates a traditional core value of the project in a pretty direct way. Is it a net positive or even a necessity? Well, there are good arguments that it is. But I would still be much more comfortable with the community making that call. More to the point, I'm more than a little concerned that this particular ArbCom approached deciding that this was a call within their purview, rather than of the broader community.

You're quite right that the current percept of the extent of the committee's authority arose because it was slowly ceded to them--through a combination of affirmative actions early on and increasingly by passive acceptance as the body gobbled up a larger and larger remit through it's decisions over the years (which have rarely been actively resisted by the community at large). I've been largely unconcerned by those developments and even defended the scope of ArbCom's authority much more over the years than questioned it. But with some of the actions of the last couple of committees, I've begun to feel we have hit a tipping point where we need to consider better defining the extent of their ability to act without community mandate, consultation, or constraint--at least when it comes to the broadest rules they wish to adopt. We've just let that line get far too blurry, imo.

ArbCom has been great boon to our procedural ecosystem, but it can and should be able to do its job within limitations, and can and should have an obligation to seek community approval of certain types of rules it wants to put in place which present broad questions about community values and priorities, even in the case where the new rule is perceived to be necessary to quell persistent disruption in a difficult area. They've increasingly crossed the line between administering our rules (plus little pragmatic adjustments to effectively stop the worst disruption) and outright policy making. And yes, that process started years and years ago, but lately the rules have been getting just a little too broad and impactful, and the process of community involvement just a little too underwhelming.

As to dying on that hill, don't worry--I'm not going to lead that charge. No way do I have the consistent time necessary for that right now. These (admittedly long-winded) concerns dumped on a colleague's talk page after the topic came up organically are about as much noise as I am looking to make. But I do think this is something the community has to reckon with eventually. Arguably we put too much authority of too much variety into one body here, and we'll have to decide how to redistribute, circumscribe, or counterbalance it eventually. Nothing particularly shocking in that, given how quickly our systems evolved over the last two decades. But I do think sooner would probably be better in that respect. Anyhow, sorry for the walls of text, Nableezy: I appreciate the indulgence of a dialogue with both of you. See you again in another RfC soon, no doubt. ;) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A455bcd9 -- A455bcd9 (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Qana massacre (disambiguation)

The article Qana massacre (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TWODABS. Can be taken care of via a hatnote instead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank

The article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A455bcd9 -- A455bcd9 (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I'm "just a random person on the Internet" and we obviously disagree on many topics, but I did want to come here and say that I greatly respect your writing and editing abilities and AGF that you have the best interests of the encyclopedic at heart. Noticed the Egyptian flag on your user page -- I spent a number of wonderful years in my youth in Umm al-Dunya, and IA will return soon. Longhornsg (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We're all random people on the internet, I dont mean anything negative by that phrase. It applies to me too. What matters, always, is the sources. That is where we get legitimacy for our arguments. nableezy - 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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 policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

False Edit Summary in Hamas

Hey Nableezy, just updating on your false edit summary in Hamas page. I was trying to see when the US President call for elimination of Hamas disappeared. Also in Talk discussion we spoke and you seemed to suggest only EU was not lead worthy. Looking back I saw you removed several information bits, I noticed that you've removed the US's Joe Biden call for eliminating Hamas. In the edit summary you only referred to EU. Here is the edit summary:[1]

lead follows body, who cares the eu parliament passed a resolution

The European Parliament passed a motion stating the need for Hamas to be eliminated and US President Joe Biden has expressed the same sentiment.

Information removed is above. (Also 2 sources removed in addition but you can see that in the link sent).

This is not the first time I've seen you do this. Please make sure to include the full content of the edit summary since it may be misleading for others. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead follows body covers all of that. Nowhere in the body of the article did it discuss Joe Biden or the eu parliament, you just added that bullshit to the lead to continue turning the encyclopedia page into the case against Hamas. You have, consistently across a range of pages, attempted to skew the leads of articles by adding whatever bullshit you can Google up and stuff it in to the lead without a thought as to weight or how poorly you make the lead read. Sorry if my attempt to fix all those problems aren’t clear enough to you. But the edit summary is accurate, and your complaint here is as low quality as most of your edits. nableezy - 12:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I started this discussion to talk on your edit summaries and see how we can improve them, but you're answering with "Bullshit" and "as low quality as most of your edits". I'll be honest, It feels as if for a while now that you're writing in a negative style to me. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my edit summary was accurate. And yeah, the edits to the lead of this article, along with Gaza Strip, and al-Shifa, and nearly every single article I see you trying to twist the lead into an IDF press release has been, in my view, low quality. Its just that Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit in such a way. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved. I wish WP had a way of dealing with it short of an actual arbitration case, but alas I have not found one yet. nableezy - 17:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: - in the diff you cited, nableezy's reason of lead follows body indeed covers it adequately. I could not find any mention of "Joe Biden" or "European Parliament" in the body of the article in that diff you cited. Please review WP:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. There was no false edit summary. starship.paint (RUN) 06:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is as follows. That he erased the Joe Biden part whilst he said no one cares about the EU motion. So how is one sopposed to guess he erased the US presidential statement. Neverminded that the EU motion is significant and I do not think that no ones cares about a 17 trillion USD block calling for the elimination of Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Although I've seen now that there is a section in the body that speaks of it, I still wish to deal with the content at hand. I just pointed out this summary because it made working on the content confusing and difficult. I must believe we all want to improve Wikipedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The section only appeared after Nableezy's removal. Still, you have some point that Nableezy could have mentioned Biden in the edit summary e.g. lead follows body (Biden). starship.paint (RUN) 09:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah, the edit summary just lead follows body would have been enough. I added the bit on who cares about the EU parliament as an aside, not as a justification. The justification was lead follows body. nableezy - 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Henry Kissinger

On 30 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Henry Kissinger, which you helped to improve and get ready. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. starship.paint (RUN) 06:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks, not sure it is deserved but thank you nonetheless :) nableezy - 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sca partial block request

Nableezy, your post here seems to suggest that I should just sit mute and wait for the result. Is that what you meant? TNX. (I am editing productively elsewhere.) – Sca (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. nableezy - 14:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That was succinct. Very well. -- Sca (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank

The article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A455bcd9 -- A455bcd9 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Thank you for all your work around Israel and Palestine. Andreas JN466 14:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas, I appreciate you. nableezy - 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hi,

For some reason, the talk page for the 2023 Israel-Hamas war article is itself protected, and I couldn't find anywhere else to bring up a concern with the article. You seem like an active contributor to the article, so I'm coming here to you.

My question was regarding how the article has a section "destruction of cultural heritage" as well as a "war crimes" section. From what I understand of international law, the destruction of cultural heritage is itself a war crime ([2]), so shouldn't "destruction of cultural heritage" be a subsection of the war crimes section, rather than a section on its own? In addition, that would mean that the article of War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war should also have a section on cultural destruction (it's given partial coverage in the "indiscriminate attacks" subsection of the article). What do you think?

Thanks. JasonMacker (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs sources specifically saying that it is a war crime, if those sources exist then yes it should be moved. nableezy - 17:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Just passing by, but @JasonMacker, I believe that destruction of cultural heritage is a war crime when it's intentional, not when it's inadvertent ("Ooops, the bomb missed the real target") or unfortunate (e.g., the opposing military decided to use a cultural heritage site for military purposes). The opening line of the source you link talks about "strategic and targeted acts of destruction", which suggests that other acts of destruction are treated differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Due content from Bethlehem

Hello Nableezy I saw you reverted me on Bethlehem, therefore removing very important information, some if it has been in the lead for years (for example, biblical mentions). In your Edit Summary you said: Rv unexplained removal of occupation and undue weight in lead for additions I added the removed sentences and image.

extended comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[3] This is the revert in question. Please explain why you removed the following which I did not add: as well as the city where he was anointed as the third monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel, and also states that it was built up as a fortified city by Rehoboam, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city I will note that the above is very due. Bethlehem is world renown for its biblical history and its place in the Abrahamic traditions. Can you please explain why you removed due information that is vital in understanding the role of Bethlehem in the Israelite history as well as for Christianity which has made the city important for billions of people over history. Also if not mistaken this is not a recent addition, certainly not by me and it is due. . InDuring the 1967 Six Day War, the cityBethlehem was capturedoccupied by Israel during the Third Arab–Israeli WarIsrael. Since the Oslo Accords, which comprise a series of agreements Here I agree that it merits discussion and is not strange however this is not a recent addition by me. Also there is merit to state that there are shared agreements between Israelis and Palestinians that dictate the state of Bethlehem. following persecution by PA officals and muslim officals. Please explain the removal of this info. Following your removal it appears Christians only suffer from Israeli settlements, whilst sources provided clearly state that Christians suffer from Muslim and PA persecution which is significant. It is important to maintain both parts in order to accurately reflect the reasoning of dwindling of the Christian population which was in the 1960s about 80%+ and now less then 12%. Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, a very important figure in Christianity and also for Muslims. Bethlehem's prominence arises from its role for Christians and therefore it is WP:DUE to explain the reasoning behind their dwindling. However, if you wish to remove the reasoning then remove the entire section for NPOV. I think it's due to keep, but it has to be comprehensive and reflect both. When reverting Makeandtoss I should have restored partial self rv and put the Israeli occupation under international law section in modern history paragraph. You also removed a sentence in the body which is backed by sources and is also not in lead unlike your edit summary it is not in the lead: David is considered to have originated from Bethlehem. Why is this controversial? It is well known and merits mention in the body? A Hamas rally in Bethlehem You also removed the image to the right, which is not in the body and is an image of a Hamas rally in Bethlehem. Why is this problematic? Perhaps you'd wish to add a picture of a Fatah rally in Bethlehem as well if its problematic in your eyes to show only Hamas. But again it's not in your edit summary and I did not add this picture and from a short look in history it was in the body for several months (I did not look far back so maybe it was there for years). Overall I saw you removed a lot of very due important information, also information which is not present in the lead was removed (David originating from Bethlehem and the image of the Hamas rally in Bethlehem). Can you please explain the removals?

Homerethegreat (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We have article talk pages for a reason. nableezy - 14:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC reviews

Howdy, Nableezy. Where would one go, to get the RFC reviewed at Trump's 2024 campaign? IMHO, it's not a neutrally worded. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere for now IMO, if it proceeds and then is closed then WP:AN. Better would be getting people on the talk page to agree to reformulating it in to a neutrally worded RFC prompt. nableezy - 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Puzzled

take it to the article talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was puzzled by this response[4] to my remark that a paragraph in the article was too long and detailed. Are you confusing me with another editor who put the article in a bad condition in the past? I have never edited a passage in that article to say that there had been a mass surrender. Or as you put it, "pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯ Assuming the article "pushed a lie" in the past, what has that got to do with me? Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC) No, it was a statement on the general state of the article, not an assignment of blame. When things get added and they are emphatically pushing one specific POV it isnt a problem, when that is corrected with reliable sources that show that POV to have been effectively propaganda that was inserted as though it were objective fact, then it is overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) OK, but that is not what you said. You said, "Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" That was in response to my suggestion that the paragraph be written in summary style, not that anything specific be added or not added. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Yes, it was in response to the suggestion that the inclusion of material that showed the previously included material to have been bogus is what has made things overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) This is the totality of what you were responding to: "Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight." By "conveyed here" I meant the entire "surrender" issue, not one aspect or another aspect of that issue. The article is very long and detailed and excessively so in my view. Sometimes things get ungainly during editing and we try to boil it down. However, if you feel the article should go into that detail on that point, if you feel it is not excessive, then simply say so. I am not familiar with what the article said in the past on that subject. I just don't have that frame of reference. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Sure, like I said it wasn’t meant as casting blame on you, just a reflection on how the editing goes here. Burst of edits adding very POV material, later edits to fix that POV make things too bloated. But fair enough, you meant the overall topic and not just the addition on how the initial reports were bs. nableezy - 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) @Coretheapple: Please don't clog other editors' talk pages with long missives on article content concerns; take it to the article talk page where all editors can weigh in. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Filibustering

As you can already tell, filibustering behavior is impeding editing on some articles, would you know what is the best way to deal with this issue? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You are constantly going to come across people who have gotten very good at getting in the way. They don’t have sources they don’t even read the sources you provide, but they know that just claiming such and such policy supports them is an effective way to slow things down. You just need to have faith in the wider community and bring the dispute to a noticeboard or an RFC. Honestly I think this topic is headed to arbcom again, between the filibustering and the email campaigns idk what else can really happen here. nableezy - 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

1RR violation

You violated 1RR with first revert and second revert. Please self revert or I will report you. Dovidroth (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Self reverted. (Personal attack removed) nableezy - 17:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Knock that off. If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination email arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Already did but I don’t know how that was a personal attack. nableezy - 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no {{remove unnecessarily personalized comment about an editor pointing out a mild 1rr violation and aspersion about a third party relating to off-wiki canvassing}}. I figured you'd get the drift. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Nableezy, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reading material

Is there any material you'd recommend on Israeli sexual violence against Palestinians? I found some like Sexual torture of Palestinian men by Israeli authorities, Beyond Male Israeli Soldiers, Palestinian Women, Rape, and War, UN expert accuses Israel of sexually abusing Palestine prisoners, Four IDF soldiers held over alleged abuse of Palestinian detainee, IDF removes gag on 2016 conviction of officer for raping Palestinian woman etc. Anything else that you know of? VR _talk 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ill see what I can find. nableezy - 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

<pagestalker>User:Vice regent: How long back do you want to go? Eg from Nirim, you have this from 1949; for similar incidents during 1948; search Morris, 2004, "Birth of.." for "rape".

For "aftermath"; see eg

• Nazzal, Nafez (1978). The Palestinian Exodus from Galilee 1948. Beirut: The Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 9780887281280.

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Huldra: thanks! What do you mean by "aftermath"? Also I'm interested in both the 1949-1967 and post-1967 period. Finally, I'm not just looking for rapes (strictly defined) but any form of sexual violence. VR _talk 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: by "aftermath" I mean "life after rape"; Nazzal interviewed Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in the early 1970s, including about Palestinian women who survived rape. (AFAIK: most did't) I always though the importance of rape in 1948 beeing underestimated; even if the number wasn't large, the fear of it literally emptied villages. And it was a taboo subject; the Palestinians euphemistically said they left (their village) out of fear for the "honor of their girls" (there is an Arab expression for it; bint something?). (I haven't checked, but I wonder that wasn't a reason for leaving Ein Hod, noted in this book?)

About sexual violence in general; Tom Segev had an article in Haaretz a few years ago about how the Israelis castrated (in their public hospitals(!)) Arab Palestinian men who they accused of wrongdoing; I tried to find the article, but couldn't. (Any pagestalker to the rescue?), Interestingly, The Israeli rape-law was recently changed: if a Jewish man rapes a Jewish women, it is "only" rape. If a Palestinian man does the same; it is both rape and terrorism, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This? But its about the haganah.VR _talk 00:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Vice regent; hmm; I don't think so; I seem to recall that the article was by Tom Segev, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent, Write all the information in the Israeli war crimes article. Parham wiki (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's tricky because to call something a war crime requires not just a historian, but an international legal expert to make that claim. A journalist can say "Israel reportedly sexually humiliated Palestinian prisoners", but you need an expert in international law to say if that was a war crime. VR _talk 16:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

DCI Palestine report on a 13 year old prisoner raped by his guards, covered further by Democracy Now. nableezy - 15:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)