User talk:Onceinawhile

Justification for ARBPIA tag

Hi, I saw that you added the ARBPIA tag to Weaponization of antisemitism article here: [1].

I would like to edit the article, but cannot because this tag was added. I think that the tag was added erroneously. Per WP:PIA under "General sanctions upon related content", When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content ... Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools.

I looked through the article editing history, and I couldn't find any examples of editing that could be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and merit adding the ARBPIA tag. Could you please point me at examples of edits that you considered WP:DISRUPTIVE that would merit adding the ARBPIA tag? Happy to hear your thoughts and see if we can reach an understanding on this. Thanks! spintheer (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Spintheer, the banner requires (and states) simply that "This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic." It is normal course for in-scope articles to have this banner. If you propose your edit on the talk page it can then be added to the article by an extended-confirmed editor. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would go down that route, except the current WP:ARBECR policy makes it impossible to make any edits in the talk page beyond strictly edit requests. This means no consensus-building is allowed, which really limits the range of edits that can be made. Therefore, I want to have the ARBPIA tag removed.

Would it be ok if we do that? spintheer (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to remove it is there? It is there to inform people that anything they do there related to ARBPIA is covered by the restrictions. The article isn't EC protected is it? If the subject that requires consensus building on the talk page is unrelated to ARBPIA the template and the restrictions are not relevant to that discussion. If the subject under discussion is related to ARBPIA it needs to comply with the WP:ARBECR restrictions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As it stands the entire article is subject to Arbpia, if it were only partial, there is a separate template for that. As I said on the article talk page, in my view this article should fall under Arbpia, therefore a CT and WP:ARBECR applies. I second Onceinawhile suggestion that spintheer make properly constructed edit requests and EC editors will consider whether to implement them or not. Another idea is to leave the CT area and edit elsewhere until 500 edits are achieved. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

My view is also that the article is subject to Arbpia in its entirety. That implies the editing restrictions, which wouldn't change if the banner was removed. Zero^talk 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} template. It's conceivable I suppose that an editor would like to propose expanding the coverage of the article into areas that are unambiguously outside the scope of ARBPIA. I assume it would be fine for them to do that on the talk page. And if the scope expanded the template could be changed. But Spintheer should appreciate that it's not a negotiation. They should only participate in ARBPIA related matters via edit requests or after they have been granted the extended confirmed privilege. As you suggest, there are millions of articles to work on in the meantime. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This "broadly construed" business is an unfortunate and unproductive state of affairs. There is no evidence of editing in the Weaponization of antisemitism article that could be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. There are disagreements between editors and appropriate dispute resolution, but nothing that could be considered disruptive by policy. You could argue that this is because the ARBPIA tag was added to the article, but as we know from other articles with ARBPIA tags, disruptive editing many times continues nonetheless. The end result is that the article is closed off to 99% of editors (significant cost imo, see WP:5P3) without proof that disruption is reduced (supposed benefit). spintheer (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, the editing restrictions are not dependent on whether there is a tag (though it can make a difference to the outcome if someone is taken to a noticeboard for violating the restrictions). The editing restrictions were imposed by the Arbitration Committee and only that committee can change them. Zero^talk 03:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

> the editing restrictions are not dependent on whether there is a tag

I think that they are in borderline articles like Weaponization of antisemitism, which is conceptually broader than the specific ways that it applies in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article is called "Weaponization of antisemitism", and not "Weaponization of antisemitism in the Arab-Israeli conflict". Putting a "primary article of ARBPIA" tag on the entire article is an editorial decision which needlessly excludes editors. It is not a committee decision. spintheer (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, as a non EC editor, you are not even entitled to an opinion on the matter and your persistence here could itself be viewed as disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am entitled to any opinion I wish, but I'm assuming you mean that I can't write about it anywhere on Wikipedia? That is news to me. Could you please point me at the policy that backs up these statements? spintheer (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR (for about the fifth time). Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see how it can be interpreted this way (even meta conversations). Well argued, but what a chilling effect that creates. Way to prove my point about WP:5P3 or lack thereof. Yikes.

Ok, I'll drop the subject for now. spintheer (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Other ways of looking at it include

• "broadly construed" is necessary because of the extraordinary levels of deception and dishonesty employed by editors unable to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, especially the 'Unacceptable behaviour' section that prohibits editors from "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view...".
• Given that there are millions of articles to edit, and a WP:MAKINGEREQ process, having to meet EC requirements has little to no cost for people who want to contribute to Wikipedia, but it does impose a cost on people employing deception, a cost that benefits Wikipedia because they need to make 500 edits.
• If someone is so keen to edit a specific article out of millions, to the extent that they want to lift ARBCOM restrictions put in place to defend Wikipedia against bad actors, it might indicate that perhaps it is one of the articles they should be cautious about editing because they may have a strong POV on the issue. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd respond but as above, it seems that I can't. To be continued I guess. spintheer (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

Hello! Your submission of South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Pantheon obelisk moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Pantheon obelisk. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Palestinian citizens of Israel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Palestinian citizens of Israel, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian citizens of Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

On 9 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to "punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Non-combatant Casualty Value

Hello! Your submission of Non-combatant Casualty Value at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)