| Revision as of 16:13, 11 August 2022 view sourceNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,167 edits →You did not participate← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:31, 30 December 2024 view source Eatlandlords (talk | contribs)21 edits →advice for article creation: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- {{ |
<!-- {{Contentious topics/aware|a-i|blp|ap}} --> | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| ⚫ | | algo = old(10d) | ||
| ⚫ | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| ⚫ | | archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | |maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
| |counter = |
| counter = 58 | ||
| ⚫ | | maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| ⚫ | | archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | | minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == ] updates == | |||
| == Query about editnotices == | |||
| I saw you put an edit notice on ]. 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. | |||
| ]]] 🇺🇦 03:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Theres a template for multiple sanction regimes, or I think {{tlx|Ds/editnotice}} will do that. Ill play around with it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :er, maybe not. May have to use multiple edit notice templates, will see. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Hey {{U|Mako001}}, I wasnt able to figure out a way to make that work, so I asked at ] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Thanks for your help, I'll keep an eye on developments. ]]] 🇺🇦 22:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Disamb == | |||
| ] - It came up in a convo I had with Iskandar at ] (the extended content box). In your view, what is the rule? For instance, ] > ]? ] (]) 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :No clue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::] (]) 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Please note == | |||
| --> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ==Your query== | |||
| Hi. In answer to your regarding protecting an ARBPIA RM by way of transclusion: while that may well be technically possible to implement, personally, I wouldn't know how to do it (tehcnically). Also, beyond that, to the best of my knowledge, such a thing has never been attempted before. It has never even occurred to me. Sure would have helped with the final ]→] RM, which was just a nightmare for me to oversee under ] (though, that involved widespread canvassing rather than ARBPIA's ] restriction). Anyway, it's an interesting idea that could benefit from a wider discussion. Might be worth an ]. Regards, ] 14:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, will think about an ARCA, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made: | |||
| == Sigh == | |||
| 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 ], providing a reason with ] 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. | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like someone is doin this rodeo again. Like I said in that thread, if I had a nickel for everytime someone baselessly went after you, I would be quite wealthy. ] (]) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Well damn I missed it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> | |||
| == Action requested on Alison Weir page == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. The discussion is about the topic ].<!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 11:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Nableezy, if you are a "Confirmed-extended" editor as I assume, would you be kind enough to take a look at my requested edit of a paragraph in the protected-extended entry "Alison Weir" and take action on it? It just sits there...thanks.... kenfree ] (]) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == You did not participate == | |||
| == advice for article creation == | |||
| So ] (]) 15:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks ] (]) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting reminder. Looking at that discussion, there were four “new” / SPI-type accounts voting. Three of those four have since been identified as socks. Nableezy, since you have pointed out my inadequacies at SPI, could you advise how best to proceed in investigating the fourth (given they have returned and are currently very active). ] (]) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Was found unrelated, but personally still have 0 doubt its Icewhiz. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
Latest revision as of 17:31, 30 December 2024
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
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 two referrals 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.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Action requested on Alison Weir page
Nableezy, if you are a "Confirmed-extended" editor as I assume, would you be kind enough to take a look at my requested edit of a paragraph in the protected-extended entry "Alison Weir" and take action on it? It just sits there...thanks.... kenfree Kenfree (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
advice for article creation
hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks Eatlandlords (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)