Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Homerethegreat (talk | contribs) at 09:57, 28 November 2023 (→False Edit Summary in Hamas: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to the page 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much very kind of you. nableezy - 03:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Addition of the info on helicopter

Hello! Have you seen this edit and it's comment right before you have added the info again? Could you please clarify why you have done it? Please also see this and this. Do you mind to remove what you have added? Thank you! With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

yeah, no, Im not removing Haaretz reporting on Israeli investigations because PolitiFact discusses some other video that has nothing to do with what Haaretz reported. I dont know what NewsRu is, and based on my quick perusal of sources it doesnt come close to Haaretz in terms of reliability. Beyond that, Haaretz doesnt report this as an Israeli police investigation, but Israeli security services, which would include the Shin Bet and be outside of a police official's ability to respond to. nableezy - 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You can find what is NEWSru here: NEWSru. And it was not the only source. Here is another one. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Ill include the Times of Israel on the police denial, thanks for the source. That doesnt justify the removal of the Haaretz article however. nableezy - 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This is better then nothing. I hope we will be able to shed more light on it later on. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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 08:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

GA nom of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article

G'day Nableezy, I hope you are well. Just had a quick look at the subject article wondering about assessing it, and beyond the few currently uncited passages, I cannot see this article getting to a stable enough state for a successful GAN while the current levels of fighting and activity in the West Bank is ongoing (and it will be needing updating as it progresses), and I think at over 18,000 words it is too long and would benefit from splitting. There are also a few single sentence paragraphs. Some widget I have installed is telling me the Abdullah, Daud source is generally unreliable, and there appear to be dozens of sources in the Sources section that are not used for citations in the article itself (for example, Algazy, Bishara, Mearsheimer, Slater and Halper, and many more). The latter gives the impression there are more sources used in the article than there are. I have a great deal of respect for the work that yourself and others have done on what is an important article, but just don't think it is going to be able to be positively assessed against the GA criteria until things settle down a bit over there and it is updated and the points mentioned here are addressed. Just my two cents, take it or leave it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

A bunch of material has been condensed over time, so some of the sources that were in the article aren't used. I'll go through and prune that section, or re-add them as sources. I can replace the MEMO cite, no worries. I dont think the article itself is really getting that much editing so as not to be stable, but if you want to table the review thats fine with me. Obviously Ive had other priorities for my editing time as well. Thank you for the feedback, Ill try to get to it as soon as I can. nableezy - 16:58, 23 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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)