There's an ARBPIA starting soon, but it won't rule on content issues per se. Maybe you mean WP:DRN? But, in my opinion, probably not that helpful at the present time. Andređ22:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks for dropping by! :-D It was time for a change but maybe not such a big change! BTW, Bishzilla, you've got something hooked on your left incisor. Andređ23:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich appears to consider Mohammad Shahid Alam, an economist, and a pair of law school deans reliable sources on Zionism Please look again at the diff you linked and double check whether I am using "a pair of law school deans" as "reliable sources on Zionism," or if I cited them as reliable sources on American democracy. While you're at it, I'd rethink the suggestion that "Alam OK, Dershowitz not OK" is some kind of problem. Levivich (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I added "history of democracy," [1] but if you think it's still unclear, I'll take another swag at it. Yes, I am aware you don't think "Alam OK, Dershowitz not OK" is a problem, but I believe it is a problem if you exclude Dershowitz but not Alam as to me, they are both polarized activist academics, but opposed. Andređ22:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Hi I saw your comments on the Arab revolt page and completely agree that the current writings are biased and untrue. If you look back in the talk page you can see the person who changed it. I commented asking them to change it back to the more neutral language. Since you seem to know the inner workings of Wikipedia well who can we appeal to to get the biased language changed? Thanks. 1Rudster (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my misunderstanding of the issue as I was reading the citation's excerpt & foolishly forgot to check the actual context it was used for.
While I still believe Nadia Abu El Haj makes significant points worthy of inclusion, I agree that this -
"A Jewish "biological self-definition" has become a standard belief for many Jewish nationalists, and most Israeli population researchers have never doubted that evidence will one day be found, even though so far proof for the claim has "remained forever elusive"."
is an inaccurate claim & that it misunderstands the point she is making entirely. She isn't saying that there will never be proof of shared genetics among Jews. Instead, she points out that, at the time, even when the science wasn't there yet to prove it, it was treated as a guaranteed truth regardless, with research being driven to retroactively prove that conclusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I read what you wrote about El-Haj, and you really don't understand how broad Anthropology can get. I majored in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. Our academic system is rather weird; my title is called a "Licenciatura," for which you need to take a year as a general intro and then five years of the actual career. To earn the degree, you need to write a thesis and defend it to a jury of professors. I don't know what the equivalent title would be in other countries.
There are, as well, two specializations from which you are forced to choose one, and they comprise around 2/5ths of all classes. I majored, as I said, in the Socio-Cultural branch, but there's also Archaeological Anthropology, which has a heavier emphasis on biology.
My main point is that even I had biology as part of the curriculum. I had to study genetics and, mainly, population genetics. Dealing with allele frequencies is basic stuff. And remember that those who specialize in Archaeology have several more biology-related classes. 2800:250A:B:FC5C:F4B7:217E:324D:EA90 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between studying something at the undergrad level or taking a few 100-level biology classes for science seminar or science gened requirement for your undergrad degree in anthropology, and being an expert on the topic of genetic research who publishes papers on that topic. It's true that the basics of genetics would be covered in a broad overview of biology. That doesn't qualify El-Haj to write critical stuff about actual geneticists. We don't qualify people to be expert Wikipedia sources who have an undergrad-level understanding of a topic. To become an expert, you need to not only probably have a master's and a PhD, but also practice your field for a number of years. Harry Ostrer is a professor of genetics and medicine for over 20 years at a top institution and director of a genetics testing department for a top hospital. It's absurd to say that El-Haj has a parity level that she should be used at his expense because she studied it for requirements in undergrad. Hear how absurd that sounds, anon? Andređ23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. If you do a review or have any comments, also make a note on the DYK talk page, as I raised the question there as well. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Scarlett. Once that image of roast beef came on the screen, we all knew what was next. The image of the baby was hilarious. Probably Che's funniest joke of all time. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're getting a lot of mileage out of Jost in this one. I wonder how he'll do as the Celeb Jeopardy host. CelebJhost? Actually, I think my favorite part was probably the cold open. Melissa McCarthy steals the show as usual. Andređ23:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was waiting for her to jump through a window or a wall, and she didn't disappoint, however she outdid herself in the parking sketch, which turned it up to 11. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re Special:Diff/1264850497
Hey Andre,
Just wanted to make sure you knew that Loveforwiki was blocked as a sockmaster, not as a sock of a previously banned user, so WP:BANREVERT wouldn't apply. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk ⹠she/her) 22:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AndreJustAndre, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2018 I came under criticism for making some mistakes and I resigned under a cloud. Most of those mistakes I wouldn't make today. Andređ19:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an apology at AndreJustAndre/2018 that I wrote in 2022. Even that apology would probably be written a bit differently today. We live and we learn. For example, in 2018, I blocked the user Dewythiel under a 3RR but he hadn't actually violated 3RR because of consecutive reverts (a rule I seem to still forget somehow, or have a blind spot about). Of course, he was a sockpuppet and obviously disruptive, but I blocked him too early, aggressively, without considering how it might appear unduly political, and for reasons that weren't defensible according to the blocking policy in 2018 (though they would have probably not been too far off in 2004). I also reblocked Sk-gorka with settings that were overly aggressive and weren't merited. I'm not really sure why I did that, but it also doesn't follow the norms or policies of blocking. Or 101.103.154.182, an IP vandal, should have been not blocked indefinitely but for a shorter time. These are all pretty stupid mistakes partly brought on from the fact that I became an admin when things were a lot faster and looser about how these things were done, and I didn't bother to brush up on the details of the policy to ensure that I was following it more closely, just kind of jumped into the driver's seat and did some reckless things, then I dug in on it when called out. I became an admin in 2004 when we really applied a lot more discretion. Today, they call that the "cowboy admin" days and the community expects a lot more from admins. The community doesn't take kindly to running willy nilly. You could say those were unforced errors. I also lost a lot of community trust through some other statements I made prior to this, some of which were construed as OUTING and ASPERSIONS - policies that didn't exist in 2004 and I completely wasn't up on. I can't get into all the details of those, but at least one of the editors that I got into a dispute with, Winkelvi, was indeffed as a disruptive editor. At the time I claimed "temporary insanity" and I do think I wasn't really thinking straight at the time. I was going through some stressful things in real life and career at the time, a death in the family and trouble adjusting to some changes in my life at the time. It's not really an excuse but an explanation, I've apologized for it before, and I will again. Andređ21:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to write this detailed response. I find that you have a balanced approach in your contributions. Itâs a shame. 2A01:E0A:252:48E0:B1D2:323:9B23:750D (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been able to make many contributions since resigning as an admin. I resigned as an admin in 2018 and I took a long break, but returned in 2022 and have been able to create a number of articles, rewrote a few articles and made minor edits to many other articles. I've made over 10,000 edits in my post-admin wiki-career. It hasn't really mattered that I'm not an admin because these days, you can report users to AIV or ANI and get a prompt response most of the time. Andređ04:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AndreJustAndre, nice to meet you. I noticed you list yourself as a participant in WP:WikiProject Jewish-Americans, and would be grateful for your assistance at the Bill Ackman article, which I'm avoiding editing directly because of a conflict of interest. Please see Talk:Bill Ackman#Philanthropy section. As it reads now, the content of the Philanthropy section is disjointed and imbalanced; the changes I suggested are aimed at resolving the problem. I look forward to hearing from you - thank you for your time and help. FMatPSCM (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I might be willing to help out with Bill's page. But I'm not sure I understand the reasoning you've provided for what you want to trim as not relevant. And I'm not sure I understand why what you want to add is so relevant. It seems to be like something that Bill Ackman might want on his wiki page that he donated to the Center for Jewish History or was honored at a gala etc. Whereas what you want to add doesn't seem particularly relevant and almost sounds like a bit of bad PR since you toss in a bit of shade and defending someone accused of sexual misconduct, which sounds a little COATRACKy and not exactly something Bill Ackman probably wants to be associated with to be honest. Maybe you want to send me an email to tell me more about why you want to make these changes if you don't want to do it on wiki. But, as for right now, I'm not sure. Andređ08:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify slightly, I understand the trim was not an add, my message might be slightly confused. I'm about to log off. But in general, since almost everything there has a source, I'm not sure. Andređ08:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review and reply. To clarify, I am trying to fix the current imbalance in the Philanthropy section, which is now a confused prose of disparate gifts that don't present an accurate picture of Ackman's history of giving. While it's true that everything is sourced, too much attention and weight is given to individual organizations, giving the false impression that groups like, say, Planned Parenthood were disproportionately significant recipients of Ackman's philanthropy, when in reality they were one of many, many recipients over the years. Instead of dedicating a paragraph to each and every organization that Ackman gave to and is documented in RS - which would make the Philanthropy section inordinately long - I am proposing that there should be dedicated sentences or paragraphs only for philanthropy that was particularly significant in the greater context of Ackman's years of involvement in philanthropy. The consolidated list I proposed notes some of the more prominent grantees (including the Center for Jewish History) without getting into the less noteworthy details, like that he was honored at a gala one time for an organization he supported.
Regarding Sabatini, as I think you noticed, my proposed change was strictly to trim and change the order, not to add any new content. If you feel the whole paragraph is COATRACKy, feel free to remove. Again, I am grateful for your time and review and look forward to continuing to work together to improve the article. FMatPSCM (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?
What does the following refer to specifically - "It seems that now, some arbs support sanctioning me for the difference between my treatment of Irtapil..."? Did I miss something? Asymmetries in suspected ban evading actor selection and reporting is the norm, so your comment got my attention. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 ArabâIsraeli 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 ArabâIsraeli 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.
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)[reply]
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. Andređ01:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The redirect HAL America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30 § HAL America until a consensus is reached. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 Done, thanks, [2] Andređ 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
