2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008–9

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

You got mail, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same problem, again, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes Galobtter Orangemike BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange Bureaucrat changes Addshore

CheckUser changes Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime Oversight changes AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is ((db-disambig)); the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is ((db-redircom)); the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use ((db-blankdraft)).

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• ((Copyvio-revdel)) now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Please note that 09:44, 6 February 2019 and 13:57, 5 February 2019 would seem to be in contravention of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I can't count. Zero^talk 09:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zero0000, shalom. While trying to change the title of an article that I created (Promontory of Tyre to "Ladder of Tyre"), this last name being the new name ("Ladder of Tyre") since it is the more common of the two names, I received a message that the page cannot be moved, since a title (redirect) already exists by that name, and that I should consult an administrator. So, here I am. If you can please help me change this article's title to "Ladder of Tyre," I would be greatly appreciative of your assistance. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that it has already been done. Thanks again.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm about to tell one non-ECP editor to stay away from this page, and I don't want to get involved in what seems to be an edit war, but the article now describes Lehi as a terrorist group but Lehi's article calls it paramilitary. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, could you revoke their talk page access? —RainFall 09:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RainFall: Done and revdelled. Zero^talk 10:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes Evad37 There'sNoTime Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ritchie333

CheckUser changes There'sNoTime Keegan • Ks0stm Oversight changes There'sNoTime Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

I have moved the thread to Talk:Paulet–Newcombe Agreement as better to have it there for posterity. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah Mentifisto → Lofty abyss Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Do you remember any of the articles where IW made classic tendentious arguments? Im thinking of wholesale removal of text as "off-topic", making opposing arguments based off POV and such things. I got Rouzan al-Najjar already, combing through others but you may have a better memory than I do. nableezy - 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this is what I have compiled so far. nableezy - 17:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't forget BOOMERANGS are possible, as always in this place. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nableezy, see this: Talk:Elie_Wiesel/Archive_2#Molestation_allegations (*one* woman had accused EW of molestation, reported in RS): Icewhiz argues against including it in his bio.

Then, a month later, see Talk:Linda_Sarsour/Archive_10#Asmi_Fathelbab_allegations: a woman alleges that Linda Sarsour did nothing when she was allegedly molested by a coworker (Sarsour was their boss): : Icewhiz argues for including it in her bio. (Haaretz just repeated my claim about hypocrisy or double standards, but didn't say why I had called it that,) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think thats outside of ARBPIA. Yes ARBBLP, but not ARBPIA. nableezy - 20:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators will take action if it can be simply shown that an editor's behaviour is disruptive. They will not want to be asked to make judgements about whether an individual's line of argumentation is consistently tendentious. Unless it shows that an editor's approach is wildly outside the norm for a contentious subject area, I suspect that putting together a complex case runs the risk of looking like victimisation, harassment or a vendetta and itself being seen as problematic. Sorry if I expressed that patronisingly, but I thought it was worth saying. Having said the above, I think it might be useful to have a conversation which clarifies what the problems are.     ←   ZScarpia   11:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting stuff: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland.     ←   ZScarpia   12:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reversed your removal of well-sourced material relevant to Iran-Israel relations, and dispute the notion that because a poliician makes an overture that some subjective viewers might judge to be a cynical—an offer the recipient is not expected to take up—it is somehow unnewsworthy or irrelevant to the article at hand. I would think such offers to be relevant regardless of their effectiveness. Please have a look at the YouTube video created by Netanyahu himself. Perhaps it deserves to be mentioned in a different place in the article? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vesuvius Dogg: This is the sort of stuff that happens every other day. It is just propaganda noise and had no significance at the time and will have no significance in the future. Also, presenting this as a genuine offer amounts to accepting a claim from one side and thus is an NPOV violation. Netanyahu is not stupid enough to really think that Iran and Israel will cooperate on water conservation. It would be much better to cover public relations at a higher level from independent analysts. This is what I mean, though I'm not saying that is a good source. Zero^talk 02:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. It would be worthy if it was in an article like Iran Watar problems or something like that. Propaganda made by a politician is not worth to be in article like Iran-Israel relationship or we would be adding a lot of propoganda made by Iranian/Israeli politicians in this article. Also Vesuvius Dogg why did you revert with no edit summary and tagged your revert as minor edit? Did you do that accidentally??--SharabSalam (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, please explain why you reverted both of my edits. Thanks IsraeliIdan (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zvikorn: Because you were editing against a hard-won consensus and we don't need to go around the same circle yet again. "Occupied" is the word used by the great majority of reliable sources, so we use it. Zero^talk 11:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Then I am at least adding the part that it was captured from the Jordanians. Leaving occupied.

How is an "Interaction Ban" meant to be applied? Does this mean a prohibition from engaging in discussions with another editor, or does it mean where one editor has edited a Wikipedia page, the banned editor cannot edit there at all? Please explain.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't prevent you editing the same pages, but it prevents you from interfering in any way with the other editor's edits on that page, such as reverting them, changing text they inserted, etc.. See WP:IBAN for the official definition. Zero^talk 02:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Do you think such a ban will be helpful between me and Huldra?Davidbena (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I don't believe it would. Articles would suffer. Zero^talk 02:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS Necrothesp Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman Interface administrator changes Pharos

Bureaucrat changes Primefac CheckUser changes Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Dear Zero0000,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to correct you on "The real question is of how to assign relative weights to two undeniable historical facts. One is that a large number of Polish civilians died during WWII, and the other is that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis in the genocide of the Jews." This dispute has nothing to do with the fact a, i.e. that " a large number of Polish civilians died during WWII", nobody is disputing that. The issue is how to weight the fact that some Poles helped the Jews while others collaborated and even killed them themselves. Obviously, this controversial (and not just in Poland, variations of this are true in all European countries that were under Nazi influence); the point is that some people in Poland try to exaggerate the rescue and whitewash the collaboration - but also, some others do the reverse, try to exaggerate the collaboration (and related vices like antisemitism) and minimize the rescue. Which leads to the two camps I describe, and various levels of compromise in between, with the major issue that on both extremes we have scholars (media aside) who don't acknowledge there could be a middle ground and that they themselves can be exaggerating/whitewashing something, because they are very much on a crusade to right the wrongs, with the wrongs being either the "cover-up/ignorance about the extent of Polish collaboration", or the "exaggeration of said collaboration and ignorance of the rescue efforts". Hope that helps a bit, and you may want to refactor your statement a bit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Please do take a look at this [[1]]. If you think of it like I do, maybe you can help mobilise "the usual suspects". This screams for a reaction. Thanks and have a great day, Arminden (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000:, as you know, I am currently serving a topic ban, and wish to update an article that has been remotely construed with the I/P area of conflict. The edit, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict, so I was wondering if you would be so kind as to add the following edit to the article Jaba', Haifa Subdistrict. The natural place for this edit seems to me to be in the sub-section "Classic era," simply continuing where the last editor left off. The suggested edit is as follows:

Archaeologist Benjamin Mazar, disputing this opinion, thought that Gaba of the Horsemen (Geba) (mentioned by Josephus in The Jewish War 3.3.1) ought to be identified with the ruin Ḫirbet el-Ḥârithîye (now Sha'ar HaAmakim), since in relation to Simonias, it better fits Josephus' description of Gaba / Gibea (Greek: Γάβα) in Vita § 24 being distant from Simonias 60 stadia (about 11 km.), in addition to the fact that, in relation to Besara (Beit Shearim), Gaba / Gibea (Ḫirbet el-Ḥârithîye) stood at a distance of only 20 stadia (about 4 km.) from Besara, also in agreement with Josephus.^[1][2] Victor Guérin thought that Sheikh Abreik was to be identified with Gaba of the Horsemen.

Feel free to improve its style, making it easier to comprehend. As always, I appreciate your assistance, and especially your work to further enhance the accuracy of this noble project.

Davidbena (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Doug Weller talk 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template ((Ds/aware)) to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Probably best to refrain from name calling even when —or rather especially whenever— frustration is high. Regards, El_C 16:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just saw your revert as I was looking at the editor, and noticed that whoever had added the DS talk page notice hadn't added ECP, so I've done that. But I think the editor needs a warning, not just a revert. Hard to sanction someone who hasn't been warned. Thanks. Damn, wrote this hours ago, didn't get saved! Doug Weller talk 18:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at the current situation on the article. And the edits made by a user.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this valid? I dont know User_talk:Mr.User200#Inappropriate_CanvassingMr.User200 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.User200: Generally it is not allowed to solicit support just from people you consider might take your side in a dispute. If you want to leave messages like that on personal talk pages, do it for everyone who has edited the article or its talk page recently. Alternatively, you can write to the article talk page adding a ping for each recent editor. If you want to solicit input from a wider group of editors, you can post to a project, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology or others. Zero^talk 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the information.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, User:Zero0000. I wanted to ask you, in your capacity as an administrator, what is the proper procedure for an ordinary editor, such as myself, to suggest an edit on one of the Wikipedia guidelines, such as manual of style, or on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)? --Davidbena (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: Except for trivial things like typos, it would be a good idea to write suggestions on the talk page first. Check if the issue has been discussed before. You can expect resistance if there is already an agreement or if you propose a change that will invalidate a lot of existing practice. I see some poor writing: "The letter he at the ends of words is not pronounced in Hebrew (in modern Hebrew, even with a mapik), and will be omitted in most cases." This is about how to write a word in English letters, so of course ה is omitted. The sentence should be "The letter he at the ends of words is not pronounced as "h" in Hebrew (in modern Hebrew, even with a mapik), so a final "h" will be omitted in most cases." Cheers. Zero^talk 22:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Zero0000. That was helpful. I'll formulate my suggestions and then add them to the relevant Talk-Pages.Davidbena (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

I saw your comment on the talk page. The article also clearly fails WP:SUSTAINED and has for years. The deletion rationale from 2016 was right about that. Basically all RS coverage was from a brief period in 2008. Oh well. ♟♙ (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wikipedia 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.DannyS712 (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zero, I wanted to let you know that I have archived your ARCA request here. SQL^{Query me!} 23:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zero0000,

Happy New year and wish you a prosperous 2020,

As I see you work on pages about local historical places I dare to pose my question. I used to create pages about some small historical places of my country, Iran, but I had to stop because they were locally and failed notability.This was also true for the articles which existed in Wikipedia:Persian and i translated it into English. I wonder if I can use your advice on how to continue that? Thank you.Alex-h (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alex-h: Hi, can you tell me some examples? I can see them even if they were deleted. Zero^talk 13:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Zero0000, it’s very kind of you accepting to help me with my edits. These are the articles I had problem with. Fortunately, none was deleted but all stayed in draft for sometimes.

Minaret Kabir, I had real problem finding sources outside its local circle.

Map of Iran in Afsharid Era. Although it existed in Persian Wikipedia but they put it in AFD, fortunately survived.

Alliance School, Tehran, stayed in draft for one month for not having enough sources.

Alliance School, Kermanshah, Stayed four months in draft.

Xerxes I's inscription at Van, another editor worked on it and improve it.

At last fear of having deleted articles made me to give in. I stopped creating these articles. I hope you can help me. I do appreciate that you are putting your time and efforts on this. Alex-h (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill Deor • Spartaz • Xeno Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Oversight changes Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

Good evening I am a bengali wikipedian and trying to translate Aslo accord article in Bangla. But there is a security issue and I can't copy the html text of this article to translate. Can you send me the copy of full html text in my gmail id? My gmail id is here Sorghum 14:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত (talk • contribs)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: ((uw-pblock)).
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

On vol. 2, page 301, there is supposed to be a "Tell esh Shammām" or "Tel esh-Shamam". Can you tell me what is written there about the site?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes Money emoji Athaenara • DeltaQuad Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes DeltaQuad Oversight changes DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Changes_to_many_pages I would like your opinion. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have just seem the message you left on my personal Talk page regarding canvassing. I assume it is referring to the messages I recently left on the Talk pages of the users Shrike and Tritomex. I was not sure whether this was canvassing, and I have also received messages from other editors requesting my input on pages (to address recent edits) or regarding discussions. On the canvassing page, two instances of appropriate notification listed include notifying: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" and "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". .Thus seems to apply to the twi editors I notified. Was the issue perhaps in the way in which I wrote my messages (in which I included the objections I had had with the edits in question (rather than characterizing the issue more neutrally)? If my recent messages were canvassing, what should I now do? Is the appropriate course action to delete the messages, or should I do something else? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Zero,

I just noticed you reverted my edits liking a couple pages to The Stone of Losses. I understand your reasoning, it really is a crappy article, but I'm just trying to de-orphan it. I was hoping that by linking it to higher trafficked (and relevant) articles, it would receive some attention and hopefully provoke an expert on the subject (which I am not) to get it properly researched and sourced. Is this misguided? Mbdfar (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mbdfar: I don't think there is a firm rule about this situation. My general approach is to consider the experience of the readers, rather than of the editors. The hope is that a reader who clicks on a "see also" link will come to an article with more reliable information related to the subject, but I don't think that is the case here. I think that even the association of the "stone of the strayers" with the Temple Mount is conjectural, since the primary mention in the Mishna does not say where it is. (My amateur reading is that the story of Honi implies that the stone was not on the mount, see page 398; if they were on the mount already, they wouldn't have to go somewhere else to look at it.) Actually the most efficient way to get action on an article is to list it for deletion; that was done once before but the case was closed prematurely with little benefit to the article. Zero^talk 10:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please point to where in the document that you mentioned on the talk page does it mention the definition of refugees? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: Section 5.1 is all about families of refugees. The rules are messy and not the same as UNHCR's rules, but it is false in general that refugee status is not passed to descendants. Zero^talk 01:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

I am using the PEF survey for reference in articles about archaeological sites. Is there a place where I can see in what timeframe each of the sheets was studied? I want to write exactly when these places were visited because some of them were for a time small hamlets made of mudbricks and these settlements don't always have a permanent nature.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bolter21: I don't think this information is available in detail. The early pages of volume 1 of the survey have a brief chronological account that might help a little. The maps themselves all say "surveyed and drawn May 1878" which isn't much use. Zero^talk 14:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transjordan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm guessing I don't have to explain BRD to you. Your bold addition that I reverted and you reinstated is, by your own admission, part of ARBPIA. So, please self revert and follow the usual process. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levivich: There was nothing bold about my edit. It was a perfectly normal act of article improvement. This is an article about a place and you claim that it is trivia that there used to be a village there; that's simply nonsense. It was your deletion that was bold (and unjustified). BRD is not a policy and ARBPIA does not mandate discussion before reverted content is reinserted. That rule was removed in the last ARBPIA arbcom case. Zero^talk 05:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm speechless that you are saying your addition wasn't the "bold" part of BRD but my reversion was, or that you don't have to follow BRD because it's not a policy. And ARBPIA does not mandate discussion before reverted content is reinserted?? The WP:ONUS policy is what mandates that. It's currently 2-1 opposed to the addition in the talk page thread I started. You're arguing that this content is covered by a DS area while simultaneously ignoring our policies. I ask you a second time to self revert and follow our normal editing procedures. You need consensus before you can re-add the content per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you declined to self revert, I've reverted it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me get this straight: At 03:33, 5 May 2020, you added some disputed content to the article, which was subsequently removed. At 03:46, 5 May 2020‎‎ , you logged this ARBPIA notice to the article's talk page - That notice clearly says "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert". Then, at 05:00, 5 May 2020‎ you restored the content that was removed by Levivich, directly violating the restriction that you yourself added to the page, and are now claiming doesn't apply? I think WP:AE should be the next step here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually think SPI is the next move, I'll start working on that. nableezy - 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy, who do you think is a sock this time? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you watch Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 you can find out for yourself. nableezy - 00:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this beauty.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bolter21: Yes, I know it. A large amount of work went into that site. I don't use it much because I have all the maps and more on my computer, but still the search function is useful when I can't find something. Zero^talk 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started the Survey Department of Palestine article – it would be a good place to list all the notable series of maps produced during the mandate, and to explain why the 1:20,000 and the 1:100,000 are the most important. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also started to organize the maps we have at commons - I have put all the ones I can find at commons:Category:Survey Department of Palestine maps. Pinging @Padres Hana: who was good enough to upload many of these. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can’t find the “thank” button but thx for rectifying my oversight here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Qiniya

Also, since OETA was not set up yet, how would you characterize the type of governance the city was under at that point? Martial law? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: Yes, martial law. Zero^talk 13:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Belt and Road

Copyvios: so do I, I take breaches of BLP seriously too. I can also see an editwar that needs to be nipped in the bud.

It appears that we have an editor that intended to point to an article (of dubious use) who used the wrong syntax He was then hammered (breach of AGF) by an editor with an extreme POV. Ignoring the impolite message you sent me, you have the tools to sort this out- can you ammend the edit so a link to the reference remains, and the copyvio is zapped. Can you watch this article, and if necessary put on protection- the talk page also need watching. Looking at the section that is disrespectful to a politician- using your powers can you moderate the language in the H2. Thank you for being so speedy in you action. ClemRutter (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[3] thanks GizzyCatBella🍁 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nabulsi_soap&action=history

Just because nationalistic, why not just reword description then? Especially if the sources are good.

I am not trying to promote viewpoint here; I usually try to edit (and love) by “less is more” concept. But again, if sources are good, I believe commentary on sources should be rephrased, rather than altogether omitted Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: This type of discussion should be on the article talk page. The only possible mention of Israelites is in the Hebrew source, as the other sources here don't mention Israelites. I checked. I can't fix text based on a source I can't access, and it can't stay like it is because it says "were used in soap production, known as potash" which is simply false (potash cannot be used as soap). Soap production in the Middle East long predated Israelites anyway, so why is this insertion here at all? I still think it looks like a standard type of nationalistic push. If the ancient history of soap making is to be covered, it should be done in a balanced fashion. Both of the other sources (Abu Rabia and Cohen, which are good and should be cited) are about soap production in Islamic Palestine but the text makes it sound like Israelites are still being discussed. Zero^talk 10:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you mind posting your reply to my talk page? For whatever reason I can’t access on you page Zarcademan123456 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(moved to article talk page). Zero^talk 12:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you tell me out what village the OCHA report (Palestinian springs expropriation page) of a Mugharier, near to the Ein Ar Rashah spring, is? Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: Al-Mughayyir, Ramallah about 2km SW of the spring. Zero^talk 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, prof. Indispensably erudite as always.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Zero0000. In response to your last comment on the Talk:Hebraization of Palestinian place names, and where you made this edit, do you think the following edit (revised) applies to the Hebraization of place names?

The retentention of the Old Hebrew name for Cesarea Philippi, according to Schürer, effectually began in the 4th century, when the name Paneas was once again used.^[1] The names Lod, Beisan, and Sepphoris were preferred by Semitic groups over their Greco-Roman names, viz., Diospolis, Scythopolis and Diocæsarea, respectively.^[2] By the time of the Middle Ages, Hadrian's intention to banish the Jews from Jerusalem and to apply his own name Ælius to the city, and which was done, according to Philostorgius, "that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country," had no longer been realised.^[3] (END QUOTE)

As for Philostorgius, can we not attribute a quote to his name, and where there is a connection to our topic matter? Just asking. While the name "Paneas" may actually be a Greek name, it was used by the Hebrews before its name was changed to Cesarea-Philippi.

Davidbena (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has all the same faults as the original version. So, no, it is not acceptable. Zero^talk 01:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes Malcolmxl5 John • TheCoffee • Tim! Creffett → GeneralNotability DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes Bbb23 Interface administrator changes TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

To editor Onceinawhile: To editor Huldra: I now have scripts which will make things like this automatically given the bounds in either lat/long form or Palestine grid form. To reduce the distraction caused by the animation, it only cycles 5 times (refresh the page to start it again). This map is larger than desirable (15MB). For only two maps, a smooth transition done in css is nicer and smaller but I didn't yet figure out how to wikify it. Zero^talk 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zero0000, I like it. Some questions:

• Would the same script allow for the creation of three separate images all with the same coordinates? That way we could have gifs on some pages and switcher buttons on others – I don’t think we need every page the same.
• Could the gifs easily have labels added to them so readers know what they are looking at?
• Could we easily add Jacotin into the same
• Is this easy for the rest of us to do? If we are going to get this put onto all 400+ depopulated villages and their current Israeli locations, we are going to have to share the burden across a number of regular editors

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onceinawhile: To your questions in order: (1) Yes, that's what it does before combining them. (2) Yes, the script could either apply text on the map itself or below it. Of course a human would have to supply the text. (3) Not easily. I rely on wikimedia and POM having tile servers with the same tile system. I'm not aware of a tile server for Jacotin so a lot of manual work would be needed. (4) All the software components are free. If you have linux, you probably have them already. If you have Mac, I can walk you through the installation. Let's not mention that other possibility. Zero^talk 02:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Zero. On (3), the POM guys seemed to suggest they intend to add Jacotin in due course, so presumably they will have to create a tile system for it. But there is no certainty that it will work well, given the number of errors in that map, so I don't think we should wait. On (4) ok great, that would be excellent. A couple of other points:

(5) I am still quite taken by the "overlays", for which I acknowledge your counterpoints. It is possible to add the creation of these to the same script?

(6) I have created a sortable table of all the destroyed villages at Talk:List_of_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#New_table_for_comment_-_DRAFT. Should allow for checking whether there are missing articles, and allows for contextualization of the most significant localities.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(3) The problem is that Jacotin's scale is irregular and the positions of the villages are only rough (and sometimes way off). It can't be overlaid on a modern map without anomalies. Also it is 1:100K so the size of the rectangle that shows a useful amount of detail is much larger than for the 1:20K maps. (4) Tell me by email what computer and OS you have and I'll send instructions and a test script. (5) Yes, the overlay is a png with transparent background and combining it with another image is elementary. Also changing it to blue. So you can tip a bowl of spaghetti onto the Mona Lisa's face if you want. (6) It should involve Khalidi and Huldra. Also, for the purpose of making maps the coordinates would be good (either Lat/Long or Pal grid). Zero^talk 14:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero0000, thanks. I will email you re 4. Re 6, Abu Sitta's work heavily sources Khalidi, Morris and Hadawi / Village Statistics. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to try to figure out Wikidata, particularly Wikidata:Wikidata:Infobox Tutorial. That way all the village infobox info can go into Wikidata, as can the images and the maps – it can then be automatically pulled from there together with the coordinates. It will make things much less manual as the way we present things here continues to evolve. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find it just now, but somewhere there is a recent discussion of problems with displaying stuff from wikidata in infoboxes, due to the lack of control that this project has over the quality of data on that project. In the case of images on Commons, we solve such problems by using a different image or no image, but if wikidata becomes another battleground over Palestinian villages after all the infoboxes in Wikipedia have been modified, it will be a big mess. Zero^talk 03:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the links on this. Very fair – it seems a little to early to create reliance on Wikidata. The project has not yet hit “critical mass”, presumably because too much of it requires programming knowledge, thereby discouraging a large proportion of Wikipedia’s editors from involvement over there. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zero0000, I've closed the clarification request you filed. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Huldra: To editor Onceinawhile: I've added Palestine Open Maps to the GeoTemplate template (the thing that is activated when you click on coordinates). Try Deir Yassin for example; it will show Palestine Open Maps as well as the Israel map choices. On the other hand, if you try Al-Mansi you will see only the Israeli maps. The reason is the "coordinates" argument of the infobox, which has "type:city_region:IL" for al-Mansi but "type:city_region:PS" for Deir Yassin. The template has the IL section inside the PS section, which is why you see both Palestine and Israel choices for region PS but only Israel choices for region IL. A task worth doing is to change the region to PS for all the depopulated villages. Zero^talk 05:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great idea. I have gone through and made the change with AutoJWB. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While doing that I noticed the template Template:GeoGroup which is on all the categories. It can automatically pull all the coordinates of any category. I wish I had noticed it before I spent all the time pulling the coordinates semi-manually a few days ago! Onceinawhile (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is brilliant! (I have no idea as to how you fixed that..)

I especially likes the "download" option :) Nice!

My only (small) objection is that I suspect very few(?) readers will find it...it took me years before I even pressed the longitude/latitude numbers ...(Hey, not everyone are as "cartophiles" as you two are! (you, and User:Padres Hana))

In short: it is a treasure trove, but I wonder how many will find it? Is it possible to make reader more aware of it? -somehow give it a greater prominence? (I suspect not, as part of GeoTemplate template? Is there other ways?)

This really deserves greater prominence, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huldra: We are planning greater prominence, probably including a direct link on each village page. Zero^talk 02:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exellent! A clear link on each page is what is needed, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Wizard of Oz Barnstar
		In recognition of Zero's magical achievements in mapping out the disappeared reality of Palestine and its peoples. Nishidunny 07:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From me, too! ;) Huldra (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess all of us bristle a little at awards and compliments. Smacks of flattery, adulation, greasing up. Nothing any of several of the constructive editors in the I/P area rank higher than a big toe compared to the majestic stature your achievement in village articles confers on you, uniquely, Huldra. What a silly sentence, come to think of it. But it is true. I don't like handing out barnstars because I consider that, singularly, they imply an underestimation of other contributors. That shed/said, I'll finish my night cap, and put one on to do some sobering reading offwiki. Best regards to you all. A magnificent collaborative collective achievement.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

could I call on Your Omniscience to clarify a thing that's threatening to rob me of sleep?

I read the Fawzi al-Qawuqji article today, having time only to fix one thing. But the sentence that he

Was also awarded the German Iron Cross, second class, for his service fighting alongside General Otto von Kreiss' Prussians

stopped me in my tracks. Ever heard of him or a Prussian corps in that area in WW1? One sees this repeated as a meme, verbatim all over the net. Could it be a conflation of the Otto in Otto Liman von Sanders and a distorted memory of von Kress in Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein-both key commanders assisting the Ottomans in the Middle east in that period? I'd ask Barry Jones, but I don't have his phone number, and we only met once in Collins Book Store in Little Collins Street in 1967, not enough to intrude again.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Nishidani, see Laila Parsons (6 February 2017). The Commander: Fawzi al-Qawuqji and the Fight for Arab Independence 1914–1948. Saqi. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-86356-176-4.. She even found a picture of him wearing the medal. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never been in doubt about the Iron Cross, he won it at Nabi Samwil and deservedly. Thanks for the link but I did check that following the indication on his page. No mention, as far as I can see of this meme datum Otto von Kreiss. The point was that overall command of the German expedition in WW! in that area was General Otto Liman von Sanders, and it was he who ordered al-Qawuqji to act as an intelligence agent, infiltrating behind British lines and furnish the general staff with field reports. His closest rapport was with a von Leyser. One would expect that to be Ernst von Leyser, lieutenant of the Prussian Army since 1909.Parsons mentions him as a cavalry officer, but in his German bio there is no mention of that chap on the Eastern front. Wiki is crammed with googled stuff that is never cross-checked, as editors google away, fish up and copy and paste the first source that pops up whatever its provenance. Ah well, no time for this. Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: I propose that it originates in the 1972 book "O Jerusalem!" by Collins and Lapierre, which has essentially the same wording "fighting alongside the Prussians of General Otto von Kreiss". No source is given. I don't think that's reliable enough so reducing the text to what Parsons has is probably the best option. Zero^talk 08:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you were writing that, I was making my corrective edit to the page. Your suspicion is precisely mine, garnered yesterday when I looked into several sources to backtrack what struck me as the usual meme replication. Thanks again.Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

I noticed your message to me in Talk:Haifa so I checked the list of unreliable sources and it seems to say that in certain cases exceptions can be made. Direct quote from the list of unreliable sources: "Some exceptions on a case by case basis are possible." It's obviously very partisan in favor of Israel on stuff like it's myths and facts section, but I feel that these concerns are less apt when it comes to simply documenting history of a particular city or town. I think there isn't as much of a problem when citing it in the history section of Haifa so I think a case could be made that we can make an exception this time.--RM (Be my friend) 23:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reenem: There are plenty of unreliable history sources. Two points on JVL: (1) Their hosting of Myths&Facts is proof of their shaky relationship to the truth. (2) The JVL page you are citing draws from Encyclopedia Judaica, including the references at the end which are just copied from EJ. EJ is written by scholars and, even though its history articles understandably focus on Jewish history, it is a reliable source for us. However, the fact that JVL cites EJ doesn't make JVL reliable, since JVL sometimes makes silent modifications of its own. I discovered this in a similar article when I saw a few sentences that I knew to be falsehoods and thought "surely EJ wouldn't have that rubbish"; sure enough, EJ didn't have it. The solution here is rather simple: cite EJ directly. I don't know if you have EJ, but I do and I'll move the citation to EJ after checking it. Regards. Zero^talk 09:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you don't mind it I'm bringing this here. The talk is starting to deviate farther and farther from the article and I wanted to keep discussion from deviating any further. In Frank Gehry, I took it to NPOV/N relatively early seeing where it was headed. The gossip about reputation being the most recent one he reverted back on, and the one before that was about dual citizenship. They're already accusing I'm FORUMSHOPPING for having it taken to NPOV/N. When someone's been told of the policy, does not ask questions about the policy, and continues to restore unsourced information? Would it have been better to open a BLP/N case after the first time they restored it? Graywalls (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graywalls: Continuously reverting isn't allowed, even if policy is on your side. The best thing is to make a case on the talk page first, for a few days at least. That forces the other side to explain their actions (edit summaries don't count for much). A formal WP:RfC can help, but I wouldn't advise it just for some unsourced text that isn't seriously problematic. After a discussion has failed (from your point of view), you can either walk away or post to a noticeboard. Don't take it too personally, life is too short. Zero^talk 10:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beshara Doumani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Hello. I try to find some neutral help and see you are online. Seams there are 1-2 guys who hate me. They attack me all the time, stalking me, try to change my articles and beeing rude to me. An article I wrote is in one diskussion after next. Since nearly 2 Months now!!! I have no Idea what I done to them. I tryed everything. 1 of them starts with vandalism. Doing very rude edits against WP:Bio and against the sources. Just write ppov in the article and this also in a very rude way. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michel_von_Tell&diff=980267392&oldid=979733489

I dindt say something and tryed to be nice. Just add more sources. But it dosent stop. They come again and again. All the time with other stuff and often in a rude way. I try to be nice, find solutions, try to explain, bring more sources, offer friendship, everything I can. Again and again but it dont stop. :( See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BIanca617#Marking_changes_as_'minor'

I not eaven know whats the real problem of this 1-2 guys? Do they hate me, the person from the article, do they hate girls here, are they anti jewish (i read the person of the article is) or is it normal here to be rude? are there many rude people here? I have no Idea:( In wiki rules they say other stuff? I dont know what to do or who I can talk to. Tryed everthing I can but I cant find a good, nice, fair way and also nobody who is helping me? The article is good and well sourced. Every single sentence has 1-2 sources. What else can I do? And I didnt do something rude:( Just did a well sourced article about a record. Much better and much better souced then most other record articles. Look at the normal once Shridhar_Chillal Lee Redmond - Can you help me? I dont want to fight all the time:( Best regards --BIanca617 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the citations to Khalidi and the info about the local map for the Kiryat Gat page! NYCJosh (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Zero0000, I have decided to give you a link to a most recent video published on YouTube. When I got to minutes 14:20, it sent goose-bumps all across my body. Please watch from beginning to end. Untold Archaeology of the Temple Mount — Rare Footage, 11 October 2020.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks David, I enjoyed the video. In 1993 I was allowed inside both the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock as part of a tour group. I understand that is now impossible for a non-Muslim. I don't remember if I have your email but if you send me mail I'll give you two relevant papers. One is a Hebrew paper of Dvira (Zweig) about the mosaics, and another is a paper of Yuval Baruch et al. They show photos of some mosaics from an Umayyad palace that look almost identical and therefore they disagree with Dvira about them. You can see Hamilton's photos of the mosaics here. Baruch et al also say that the wooden beams were tested again more recently and dated only to the Byzantine period. Zero^talk 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also visited inside the Dome of the Rock back in 1975-1976, as also in the Golden Gate. I wish I had been more studious back-then and knew exactly what to look for.Davidbena (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Davidbena (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am working on the Silwan article. Looking at the talk discussion, is there any reason why we cannot have your map in the article? Salud.Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selfstudier: No reason that I know of. Zero^talk 12:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not arguing about the content, but this isn't under ARBPIA. It's frustrating, but I found out that we can't revert this sort of edit for that reason. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: I agree that the article as a whole is not under ARBPIA, but ARBPIA now covers ARBPIA-related content of articles and not only whole articles (Item 7). I think that the designation of a place in EJ as Israel vs Palestine is ARBPIA-related content, don't you? On the other hand, you are correct that this was not a valid reason for my revert, since the article doesn't have the required templates—in this case ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes)). I'll add them unless you give a good reason why I shouldn't. Zero^talk 01:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here. Has this issue been covered in the relevant policy debates? Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Greetings! I would like to understand why you reverted my addition of 1920 Nebi Musa riots to the CAT Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims. Was it not aimed specifically at Jews? Was it not a Pogrom (a violent riot aimed at the massacre or expulsion of an ethnic or religious group)? A speech claiming "If we don't use force against the Zionists and against the Jews, we will never be rid of them" would seem to clearly indicate a desire to expel the Jews and the actions of the mobs over four days certainly seemed to lean towards massacre, as well, with 5 Jews dead, 216 wounded of which 18 critically. Was it not committed by Muslims? I can see no reason why these riots do not meet the criteria for the CAT, so please explain why did you pull the link out? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 20:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eliyahu S: I'm opposed to the use of categories to label events in a way that represents an opinion that historians disagree on. The alleged quotation you give is a fine example: in the article a well-known historian strongly disputes it and reports that Zionist intelligence reports of the time state the opposite. It is fine that both views are represented in the article, but it is not fine to select one of those views for categorisation. Zero^talk 03:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any parts of my suggested addition that remain unsourced? --Crash48 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping again. For your convenience, and to avoid the hassle of putting snippets from Google Books together to read the full fragment being cited, I've posted both referenced pages to https://imgur.com/a/4TMhYwX --Crash48 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I remember reading a source/content on Wikipedia describing Britain (specifically Samuel, Brunton, Churchill and Deeds) initial opposition to Abdullah’s ambitions in Transjordan when he arrived to Ma’an on 21 November 1920 (a few months before the Cairo conference and the change in policy). Any idea which? I completely forgot. Also @Oncenawhile:, @Huldra:, @Al Ameer son:. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Establishment of the Emirate of Transjordan (used to be Abdullah's entry into Transjordan) and Sharifian Solution they don't seem to have all those characters in them tho.Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+== ARBPIA4 ==

Hi. Must I have both of 'ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice' and 'Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement' for it to be of any use? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selfstudier: Alas, yes. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standing sanctions upon primary articles. The catch is you need either page-mover or template-editor power to add the editnotice. You can apply for page-mover at WP:PERM/PM. You can say that you want to add editnotices, which is permitted for any user (not only uninvolved users). If you are successful, to add an editnotice click the page-wide "edit" button (not the first section edit button) and you will see an "editnotice" link. If you are not successful, either (a) ask me, within limits, (b) ask at WP:RPP. Zero^talk 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That got turned down, I think I will just content myself with placing the enforcement one, that's probably enough to deter most troublemakers. I have enough things to do without going back and forth bothering you or requesting things. Thanks for help.Selfstudier (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selfstudier: You made the mistake of not specifying you wanted to add editnotices, and the admin response confirms that. Zero^talk 01:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it was clear if I said Israel Palestine, obviously not. Ah well.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selfstudier: The ability to add editnotices is quite a new feature of the PM flag. Zero^talk 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment helped, thanks. Primefac deferred to another admin and bradv gave me perms for 3 months.Selfstudier (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the editnotice at COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine and at West Bank bantustans, if you have a moment just check that I didn't mess it up somehow, please.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selfstudier: If a substantial part of the first article is not about the I-P conflict, consider using the variant ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes)) instead. I didn't check, so I have no opinion. Zero^talk 11:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that could be sensible, the previous ups and downs were mostly the usual "Palestine is not a state" /page title kind of thing. The rest, which is mostly factual data summaries, doesn't cause too many problems, just once or twice. I'll change it (and the enforcement) and see how it goes. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Wikipedia 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 2020 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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That article exists because the length and level of detail involved would not fit if there was an attempt to incorporate the material into the main Amnesty International article. That's why we have articles such as "Criticism of the BBC" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnonMoos: Right, but why is it "Criticism" rather than "Praise"? The title sets up the article to be an NPOV violation. I don't think that an article which collects only criticism can possibly satisfy NPOV. If it has to exist, it should have a neutral name like "Commentary on Amnesty International" and collect both positive and negative opinions. Zero^talk 01:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The title "Criticism of Amnesty International" is not NPOV, unless you think that Amnesty International is inherently beyond all criticism (by divine right or something). "Amnesty International is a stinky garbage" would be NPOV. The potential problem with such "Criticism" articles is that they present a limited and selective view of their subjects. However, this has been accepted on Wikipedia as a lesser evil in cases where discussing such criticisms at a length and level of detail which is justified by their notability results in an amount of text that can't usefully be incorporated into the main article on the subject. Imagine what the main "BBC" article would be like if it included all of the text from the "Criticism of the BBC" and "BBC controversies" articles! And you could be considered naive for asking where the "Praise" articles are -- praise tends to be kind of inert (does not usually attract much attention), while criticism often generates rebuttals and causes controversy and/or is part of a previously-existing controversy, leading to a cascade of acrimony. You may not like it, but that's kind of what human nature is. However, you could get together with the Torrance Community Dance Group and do an interpretive song-and-dance routine in praise of Amnesty International, if you feel that's necessary. AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnonMoos: Probably you mean POV, not NPOV. Nowhere did I say that criticism was inappropriate, nor did I say that we should have a "Praise" article. Your example "BBC controversies" actually illustrates my point and is quite similar to my suggestion "Commentary on Amnesty International". "Controversies" suggests a two-way exchange of views, whereas "Criticism" suggests only one-way negative views, a clear and obvious violation of the NPOV policy. What the point of your last sentence is, I have no idea, but I'll assume you are not trying to be offensive. Zero^talk 08:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you ever heard the song "Praise You" by Fatboy Slim? It was number 1 in several territories, and number 1 on the dance music charts in several others. Since the 1990s, I haven't listened to much radio except NPR (and in recent years not even NPR), but I've still heard it, and seen the music video...

Consider that I said "NPOV violation", then -- but it's quite ridiculous and absurd to claim that the title "Criticism of Amnesty International" is itself an NPOV violation (unless, of course, you feel that Amnesty International is intrinsically beyond all criticism). We have an article "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", but that won't get rid of all "Criticism" articles, since "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is a book (not an organization)... AnonMoos (talk)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

A while ago you proposed merging Dhimmitude to Bat Ye'or at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Dhimmitude. I agreed to it and so did @Nishidani: and @Warshy: and there was no disagreement. What is the way to do this? Is it to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger?VR _talk 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Zero,

This user's socketpuppet investigation may be of interest to you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Infinity_Knight , with a CU check confirming same geolocation. This user had reverted one of your edits on the Khairallah Talfah article, then subsequently reverted edits later under a brand new Wikipedia account and then under an IP address. Since you're an administrator that has edited on some of the same articles as the user under SPI, please take a look if you have a chance. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes Hammersoft Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac Oversight changes Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

I tried to delete/merge the "Reunification" article and got nowhere. Maybe I need to come at this a different way altogether. The 67 annex (de facto at a minimum, de jure for all practical purposes according to most authoritative sources annexed "Jordanian East Jerusalem" (this part one could arguably describe as "reunification") and a chunk of the WB (this part is a straight up annex). Neither part is accepted internationally as legal (no change to Jerusalem and occupied WB (including East Jerusalem) resolutions.) Then, a la Jordan case, we have a missing article, Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem (Annexation of East Jerusalem is currently a redirect to Jerusalem Law which is wrong afaics but I have not sources to verify that as yet) where East Jerusalem has today's meaning of both annexed parts (compare Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and West Bank.) Such an article has foundational sourcing, is clearly notable and fixes up misapprehensions/lacunae in the existing Jerusalem articles (reunification, Jerusalem law and Jerusalem day as well as to a lesser extent East Jerusalem articles). Do you think an article like that has merit? An aside, what is your understanding of the term "Arab Jerusalem"? Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes Hog Farm Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes Berean Hunter • Xeno Oversight changes Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Hi Zero - I hope things are OK. I am making an attempt to rationalise some of the piles of books in the back room and realise I have 60-70 B'Tselem reports. I am minded to list them on the B'Tselem page but I have a memory that there used to be something similar but it seems to have gone. Can you remember if this is ground that has already been trampled on? Will I just get told off if I have a go at it? All the best.Padres Hana (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Padres Hana: I don't think it would be accepted. It isn't usual to give such long lists of publications on the pages of organizations. Consider Amnesty International for example. A possibility would be a project subpage similar to WP:WikiProject Palestine/Books. Does B'Tselem publish a list of their reports? If so an external link would be appropriate. Zero^talk 07:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - it makes sense + great link! Padres Hana (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.