User talk:AndreJustAndre

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

Contentious topics awareness

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

I thought you should know that some people at a Wikipedia criticism site are making a stink about this edit. (Olfactory pun not intended.) Personally, I don't think it's an issue, because it's not within the topic area. But given the need to be careful, well, it's best to be extra careful. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but that edit was practically indistinguishable from vandalism, or at least an IP removed content without explaining why. Also, as you said, "Jewish nose" as far as I know, is not within ARBPIA. If someone believes otherwise they can let me know and I'll revert that edit, but I was under the impression that any topic about Judaism or antisemitism isn't automatically in ARBPIA, though many are of course, and there might be ways that an edit could be violating if it touches on ARBPIA without the whole topic being in it; that was my understanding, so I don't see how that edit was violating that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Andre🚐 01:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that the IP edit was close to vandalism and an obvious target for reverting, and I also agree that a sensible understanding of ARBPIA is that it does not extend into all of antisemitism. I don't see any need for you to self-revert. In part, I just wanted to let you know, and in part, I'm thinking more about those who inevitably display a not-sensible understanding of the topic definition. There are probably going to be unreasonable people who will try to read "topic ban violation" into anything you edit that is in any way related to Judaism. That's just the way it is, and there is an element of gamble in hoping for more sensible heads to prevail if a complaint, or a vexatious litigation, gets filed. That's the balancing act you will have to navigate. If you ever want to ask me to watch a page for you, with you un-watching it, or ask me anything else along those lines, I'd be more than happy to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that! Thanks! Andre🚐 20:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)