Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 5 August 2022

Query about editnotices

I saw you put an edit notice on List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Thanks for that. The article in question includes parts related to multiple DS areas ("Armenia-Azerbaijan 2", "Eastern Europe", "India-Pakistan", "Horn of Africa", "Kurds and Kurdistan" and also "The Troubles"), along with the specialised DS area "Antisemitism in Poland". Since you've got a good deal more experience than I do in ArbCom sanctions areas, I have some questions:

a). Is there any way of indicating to an editor that the specific section they are about to edit is related to a DS area?

b). Is there any way of adding mentions to those areas in the edit notice as well, or is this just for ARBPIA areas?

c). Would it be violate any policies/rulings/guidleines to do so?

d). If doesn't, would it be worthwhile?

I'm not really looking for a quick response, so don't feel pressured to reply quickly, just ping me when you do. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Theres a template for multiple sanction regimes, or I think {{Ds/editnotice}} will do that. Ill play around with it. nableezy - 03:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

er, maybe not. May have to use multiple edit notice templates, will see. nableezy - 03:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A-I alerts

I usually add this to make things as explicit as possible. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

We had some discussion at Zero's talk and sort of settled on " In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and internal project discussions such as RfCs and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages." Course there's no copyright on that :)

Yeah for good faith new users I try to do the same. Some of them are just so obviously Yaniv socks I just give the bare minimum alert and move on with my life though. nableezy - 12:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice

How to proceed here, or not? Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not, there was no 1RR notice, you didnt have consensus for a redirect on the talk page either. Silence may be consent, but when it is no longer silent there is no consent. Discuss, dont report. nableezy - 16:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

K, done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disamb

WP:PLACEDAB - It came up in a convo I had with Iskandar at Talk:Al-Bustan (East Jerusalem)#Requested move 27 June 2022 (the extended content box). In your view, what is the rule? For instance, Old City (Jerusalem) > Old City (East Jerusalem)? Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No clue. nableezy - 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Aqsa

I don’t even know if you are convinced by the traffic assessment. After having things this way for 20 years, a lot of editors are understandably finding it difficult to believe that most readers are actually looking to learn about the wider compound. If you are not sure about this, then we should discuss. It will make things much harder if the assessment is stopped before everyone who isn’t comfortable has had a chance to test it themselves.

I get that you just want to get on with a final discussion to reach a sensible outcome here, but we cannot guarantee the next discussion will attract only thoughtful editors.

Building consensus around hard data will be much easier than asking people to read and assess sources, which, after two months, too many involved parties have clearly still not done. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not, no. I think that's more a product of the framing of the dab page than anything else. I mostly agree with Zero on this overall. But no, I think this traffic assessment is close to meaningless. And not especially relevant either. I also think you should try harder to not engage so much on this. I know you have strong feelings about it, and I know a lot of the opposes are built on questionable logic and/or facts, but you simply will not prevail by out-arguing all comers. Provide your best evidence, your best argument, and thats it. And let the process play out. If your position garners a consensus, great. If not, oh well. Lots of disappointing things here happen everyday. nableezy - 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Real engagement on this is necessary because of the 20 year history I mentioned. So many editors here have grown up through their long histories with this encyclopedia being comfortable with this arrangement. They need to be encouraged to really think about it. It is not about out-arguing, it is about asking people to take the time needed to properly reassess their preconceptions and come to their own conclusions. For example, over that same 20 year period the brand "Al Aqsa" has continued to become more and more prevalent, and I sense that a lot of editors on here haven't fully noticed it.

Your point on "product of the framing of the dab page" is exactly why I want you (and others) to put your oar in there now. I don't want anyone to be able to say those words when it comes to the final reckoning. Everyone should have had a chance beforehand to check that the way they think the dab page should be framed will give the results they expect. So far we have had four versions, all have given the same answers. Please do me a favor and show us how you think the dab page should be framed.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, try to put this specific discussion outside of your mind for this. There is basically an iron-clad law on Misplaced Pages. The more often any one signature appears in a discussion the less likely the position advocated by that person will be adopted. The more large blocks of text that appear in a discussion, the less likely any consensus will emerge from it. You have to get that point, that bludgeoning a discussion is something that no closer will look at kindly, to the point where they will reflexively end it with a no-consensus or just completely disregard your view. Make your point and move on, that is the only way to get some sort of consensus to emerge. There are plenty of times Ive failed to follow my own advice on this topic, but they usually did not end well for me. Once or twice maybe, but in general it does not. When you have multiple users saying your comments have crossed the line in to bludgeoning you need to step back and stop. Because to be totally frank with you, at some point some admin is going to look at it as disruptive editing and ban you from the discussion if not the wider topic. nableezy - 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note

--> GizzyCatBella🍁 05:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

thanks, though I could have added to the behavioral evidence if that were said then. But will keep in mind, ty. nableezy - 13:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)