Hello, האופה, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Asi Abutbul did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Miriam Shatal, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Thanks for your contributions to Meir Adoni. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Miki Shemo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, האופה!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jamiebuba (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Meir Adoni and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Funding of Hezbollah into Hezbollah-Iran relations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't add copyright material copied from other websites to Wikipedia. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nabil Qaouk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre. 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.)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello האופה, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Gan Kofim, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Kofim.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel–Hamas war in Israeli music until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
@Grabup I didn't remove it, I moved it to the bottom part of the lead, I thought we should start by describing the event and then get into the backgroung. Please check again the same edit you shared here. HaOfa (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why you added this line? “unprecedented missile and drone strike by Iran on Israel” this line shows that you are totally biased to Israel, and you are from Israel as your name is in Hebrew. Grabup (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, האופה. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Miki Shemo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, האופה. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Meir Adoni, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
An article you recently created, Hanoch Daum, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Maliner (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi האופה. Thank you for your work on Dov Navon. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
An article you recently created, Shaul Amsterdamski, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Maliner (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings
Hello האופה. — A belated welcome to Wikipedia. I took the liberty of adding an editor's start to your main user page. Now your user name doesn't appear as a red link. Hope this is all well for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @JDiala, I've been very careful not to violate 1RR with any of my edits. Can you please share the exact diffs you think are 1RR vio? Thank you HaOfa (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're reverting the edit of the person who wrote it was the Gazan health ministry and are now claiming it was the Hamas media office. It's a revert. JDiala (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might actually be wrong here, in which case my apologies. I guess a revert requires a reversion back to a previous version. JDiala (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Erel Segal. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erel Segal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi, I'm Sammi. I've seen that you and some other editors have been expanding our coverage of Israeli radio stations.
I made a change to Galey Israel by adopting a "Notable presenters" list, in line with many UK stations. These lists should only contain people with articles (I'd also take interlanguage links to other Wikipedias). I would advise getting a citation for each presenter you list (especially for WP:BLP reasons). I also added some things to the infobox that should have been there.
As an editor amply familiar with radio stations but not Israel topics, I'm available as a resource if you have questions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, האופה. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hezbollah–syria relations, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I explained my reasons for removing the content. The text focuses on Israel and Zionism as settler colonialism, and I retained the section linking genocide accusations to this concept. On the other hand, you removed new content directly relevant to the topic, including criticism by renowned scholars, but the content needed balancing. I also tried to structure it in a more encyclopedic way: starting with an overview, moving on to the history of the claim, possible connection to genocide, and then summary of critcism. Can we work together to improve the article? Let's keep it collaborative :) HaOfa (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly didn't explain the content that you removed. I don't work with edit warriors who don't respect BRD. Are you going to self-revert and seek consensus for your massive changes? M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Shay Golden. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Shay Golden. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Please go through the AFC..
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hi @Youknow, Thanks for helping improve the last few articles I've written. Shay Golden is a very well-known Israeli writer and media person. There are also sources that testify to this. He wrote 8 books in well-known publishers, he broadcasted on several Israeli media networks. I really don't think he should be in the draft.
I searched extensively but could not find WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS. Therefore, I have drafted your article so that you can include reliable sources. Once you add these sources, you can submit it for AFC review, and the reviewer will likely accept your draft.
By the way, there are very early signs of cereal grown in ancient Israel thousands of years ago. Interesting fact. Well goodbye. O.maximov (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello O.maximov!
Thank you for your warm greeting! Indeed, I do bake - mostly bread, but occasionally cakes too. I'm glad to hear about the ancient cereal! Maybe I should try to recreate an ancient Israeli bread recipe? Who knows, it might become the next big thing!
By the way, did you know that ancient grains are making a comeback in modern baking? There's something magical about connecting with our culinary past. HaOfa (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know about ancient cereal and beer? There's a place in Ashkelon in which they make beer from ancient yeast. Here is the link to an article about them [1]. O.maximov (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
@Vice regent, hello friend, the first diff is not a revert. I just moved the content from section to section. Check yourself again, it's still on the article. HaOfa (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a revert? I haven't cancelled anything. The content you added is still on the article. I never removed it. The only revert is the 11:40 to Kashmiri. HaOfa (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To revert is to undo the action of another editor, in whole or in part. Moving their comment from where they placed it to where you prefer it to be is obviously a revert and moving comments back and forth would constitute edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have now made a 3rd revert[2]. I moved the "analysis" section under reactions[3] and you moved it back into a subsection.VR(Please ping on reply)13:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to remove material for something to be a revert, moving a section from one place to another is also a revert because it undoes the work of another editor. It's not a particularly serious revert but it is still a revert and it would have been far better just to self revert than enter into this tedious argument here. Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem self reverting, I would like an admin's opinion on how the rule works. I'm pretty sure the first diff is not a revert, as I did not undid anything, just moved content in the article. If this is a revert, almost every article could be a revert... Therefore, I'm tagging @ScottishFinnishRadish. If I'm wrong, I'll of course self revert. HaOfa (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert at Israel. What you restored is not the "last stable version," as claimed in your edit summary. What Irestored was the "last stable version" before the ongoing RFC started, and I "proved" that with a permalink in the edit summary to the June 8 version. You restored to a later version, Special:Diff/1230554629, June 23, which was a change made during the RFC. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "the last stable version" I meant the first paragraph, with Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and so on, that were changed without discussions in the last two days. But, anyway, even if the 1948 framing you use was the last version before the RFC, it does not make it the last stable version. In fact, as far as I can remember, there was never consensus for adding Nakba to the lead... and per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That's the very reason the RFC was started, because there was no consensus for inclusion of Nakba. So while I agree its better to use the last stable version before the debate surrounding Nakba started, it wasn't the version you used, since it was never stable. HaOfa (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back to how it was when the RFC started. You re-instated a bold change made during the RFC. Either undo that, or I am going to report it at AE. If you think my version was not the right version and you want to go back to an earlier version as the "last stable version," that's fine with me, but re-instating the bold edit made during the RFC is not fine with me. Levivich (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Achi, Wikipedia is packed with anti Israel bias. I created a page about olives in Jewish history, and they wanted to delete it because of their political views. Wikipedia might be great for basic information, but when it comes to politics, it's the last place to look for anything unbiased. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
האופה, I'm pretty sure you're reading this and are intentionally silently staying away from all the conduct discussions. This is currently not a huge issue because the discussion isn't primarily about you (anymore), but ignoring community input may quickly become disruptive. Editing an area while one's conduct in that area is under discussion is usually something to be done very carefully, if at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor mentioned by @Makeandtoss regarding their edit being reverted, I can say that this is clearly not a revert, but a wording improvement. Makeandtoss, I think you should be a bit more careful when making such harsh allegations. OdNahlawi (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any undo, of any sort, with the first diff you presented. What I see is an editor changing the order of words in a sentence to make it more readable. ABHammad (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about missing this. I wasn't available much of the weekend, and came back to ~100 pings and a couple hundred notifications. I plan on looking into this tomorrow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'ariv reported that during his time in prison, Sinwarenrolledin fifteen courses through the [[Open University of Israel]]overaspanofsevenyears,beginningin1995. Most were in history, covering topics such asthehistoryof the Jews in the [[Second Temple period|Second Temple]] and [[Rabbinic period|Rabbinic periods]], the First Temple period, [[The Holocaust]], and [[Zionism]], along with a political science course on governance and Israeli democracy.
+
[[Maariv (newspaper)|Ma'ariv]] reported that during his seven years in prison, starting in 1995, Sinwar took fifteen courses through the [[Open University of Israel]]. Most were in history, covering topics such as the Jews in the [[Second Temple period|Second Temple]] and [[Rabbinic period|Rabbinic periods]], the First Temple period, [[The Holocaust]], and [[Zionism]], along with a political science course on governance and Israeli democracy.
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Interesting discussion, I had the same thought process in my mind a while ago. On the other hand I remember reading an advice some many months ago, probably on AE, that a revert can be considered almost anything, so it is better to avoid the entire sentence all together, which has been standard practice by most editors as far as I have observed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is my general advice as well, but in this case we have all of the same information presented in very close to the same way. There was no shift of POV, attribution, or facts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For interest, bearing in mind that I really have no idea what is or is not a revert, I regard a Maariv (newspaper)|Ma'ariv -> Ma'ariv transform as a revert, because it changes the reader's access to information related to the source and removes the only internal link to the relevant article. Sometimes this might matter. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland:@ScottishFinnishRadish: In addition to what Sean mentioned, I personally believe a reordering of the structure of a sentence is a revert, but again, I am ready to accept whichever interpretation is most common and stick to it, by myself and everyone else. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a broader array of admin input you can bring this to AE, but I think this case will firmly fall into the "not a revert" category. I may be incorrect, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is substandard. Opinion material was added along with a citation needed tag. The edit has been reverted so no matter but please refrain from this type of editing in the future. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm GrabUp. I noticed that you recently removed content from November_2024_Amsterdam_attacks without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You should not remove well-cited material from a controversial article; you removed many citations, like those from Times of Israel, BBC, and others.GrabUp - Talk12:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed information about the taxi driver, saying, ‘Sources don’t blame them.’ Here is a source from the BBC that mentions: ‘Peter Holla tells reporters in Amsterdam that Maccabi supporters attacked a taxi and set a Palestinian flag on fire on Wednesday.’ GrabUp - Talk12:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. an edit conflict. thanks for noticing. I see it was restored anyway. By the way, the article is a huge mess right now, and a violation of POV I am afraid HaOfa (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss The editor has already acknowledged their mistake above. Why do you continue to fill users' pages with allegations that are either unverified or have already been resolved? You did it here on this same page just a few weeks ago. Why are we at it again? ABHammad (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.
Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.
Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
All case pages are to be semi-protected.
Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
Addendum
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
@Selfstudier. It is bolded at Palestine (region) because Iskandar323 added it as an 'alt name,' citing highly opinionated sources in this edit from last July. I agree with @האופה that this term is largely a POV term, with many sources distancing themselves from it, as it often originates from pro-Palestinian political discourse (and should be moved from its current aka position at Palestine to an etymology section, alongside Land of Israel). Wikipedia is not a reliable source, particularly on ARBPIA topics, which I believe have been subject to major CPUSH campaigns in recent years. There's a reason we have an incoming case on PIA. ABHammad (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw all the harrassment and attacks that have been directed at you. Thank you for your work here and I hope this doesn't drive you away. Hang in there! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:18, 3 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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was blocked for no reason!
I've been here for a year and have written hundreds of articles. I've invested days and nights into Wikipedia. I have no idea who this Icewiz is or why would anyone say me and him are the same person. Same about AB.Hamed!
I was blocked solely because for political reasons, there's no other way to describe it. Check my edits, and you'll understand why I have nothing to do with them!
Are you kidding me? This block is based on the filing of Makeandtoss, who is a side to an ARBCOM case, PIA5, about their interactions with other users.
This block is just madness. I hope that one day, Israelis and Jews will be allowed to write on Wikipedia without being blocked just for being Israelis after lobbying by editors who want the content here to fit their ideology. HaOfa (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Getting Started
Tips
