Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:10, 15 November 2024

Question about possible 1RR violation

Hey @Nableezy, I'm checking to see with you if this is indeed a 1RR violation as it's from the same user you notified of this a while back.

They added highly contentious POV-pushing content, this content was then reverted, then they reverted it back again, and then they also reverted another part of the page shortly thereafter.

This seems like a pretty clear 1RR violation but I'm not sure. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Consecutive reverts with no intervening edits by another user are a single revert. nableezy - 01:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nableezy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of the term "massacre"

I agree with you that there is a double standard with the use of the term "massacre" in article titles. I have written Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles (abbreviated as MOS:PIA) to resolve that specific issue, and I want to work with you on getting this implemented. A rules-based approach will benefit the topic area by allowing us to make arguments based on a common understanding of the rules. Writing those rules into a guideline will make it easier to achieve consensus in the future.

Ideally, we would collaborate on a policy banning the term "massacre" from titles and then co-sponsor a proposal to adopt this policy at WP:Village pump (policy). In the future, when editors feel like there is a double standard across multiple articles, those issues can be brought up at the talk page of the MOS instead of fighting over precedents at every article or noticeboard or going to WP:AE. If a standard or rule is a guideline, closers can implement WP:NOTAVOTE more easily and admins can deal with editors blatantly disregarding the standards. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think banning except in the case of an actual common name, and name meaning an actual name of an even, not just a description of it, is the correct answer here. There are things like the the Hebron massacre or the Qana massacre that are so widely known by those names they should be titled that. Then there are things that are described in a number of ways, sometimes overwhelmingly but sometimes not, that don’t themselves have a name but rather a descriptive title. I think for descriptive titles it should be no massacre in titles. That would also make it so basically everything in the last year besides probably Reim and the Flour massacre would be titled massacre. Things that have a name should use that name. Things that we describe should have a less emotive title. nableezy - 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And no SFR, arguing that while we do not have such a rule that we should follow the precedent of our existing move requests is not a WP:POINT violation, it is recognizing the world we live in is not the world we would like it to be. POINT requires disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, and that isn’t disrupting a thing. nableezy - 00:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What are some guidelines we can give for what constitutes a "common name" beyond what's at WP:COMMONNAME? I can agree in principle to that exception. I would add that a name should be used beyond just Arab or Israeli sources. So, the sources used to establish a common name should reflect a broad perspective.

Additionally, it'd be better to use historical examples with broad agreement in the guideline rather than ones from the present conflict, given that both explain the point effectively. So, the 1929 Hebron massacre or Qana massacre are good examples (especially as they're called such by both Arab and Israeli sources), but I wouldn't include the Reim or Flour massacres because there's still activity on trying to move them. The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is also a good example, but I would like to keep the number of examples in the guideline evenly balanced between both sides. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the draft taking into account your feedback. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There was this recent discussion Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: It seems like there's some form of consensus over the term "massacre" in titles. The issue is we can't easily cite that consensus. Ideally, an editor can just !vote Oppose per MOS:PIA, massacre isn't a common name, and the closer can ignore arguments that don't demonstrate how massacre is a common name. It's more difficult to cite a random discussion or another RfC; Nableezy is currently at AE over whether or not their behaviour was POINTY, POV-pushing, or legitimate.

It's easier to determine if someone consistently advocates against prior consensus when it benefits "their side" if we write down what that consensus is.

Also, feel free to discuss on the talk page of the draft. Agreeing that sources should be required to add categories such as "massacre" or "war crime" is another uncontroversial principle I think we can get behind. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

CPUSH can only be determined with proper evidence, I don't see what that has to with anything here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The AE thread is partially over inconsistent usage of the term "massacre" in article titles and has now been referred to ARCA. A guideline on when to use the word "massacre" in article titles would address some of the issues that started that thread. Nableezy's input is important because a style guide on the Israel-Palestine conflict should be a collaborative effort between all editors. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely bonkers. nableezy - 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

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.

Motion 2b: Word limits

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.

Motion 2c: Word limits

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.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

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 title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
• The initial parties will be:
  • BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
  • Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
  • Levivich (talk · contribs)
  • Nableezy (talk · contribs)
  • PeleYoetz (talk · contribs)
  • Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
  • האופה (talk · contribs)
• Aoidh will be the initial drafter
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

• BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
• Ïvana (talk · contribs)
• Levivich (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
• האופה (talk · contribs)
• AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
• Alaexis (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs)

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.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles