User talk:Makeandtoss

@98Tigerius: Can you explain what is meant by insufficient context, and what can be added? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius:? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. While making my own changes to "October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel" I noticed that you added the named reference "cnn111", but that there is no such reference. I thought you'd like to know so that you can fix it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: Fixed, thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved administrator has suggested possible sanctions for your participation on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Makeandtoss. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Grand Husseini Mosque, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Makeandtoss. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:King Faisal Square, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Sorry, can you please explain how there was a consensus for ARCA in either thread, and how I was involved in this ARCA consensus? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see consensus among myself, Valereee, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Ealdgyth that AE is going to be unable to fully address the second Nableezy thread. I explained at ARCA why I interpreted that as also applying to the first thread and my reply to IO explains how you're involved. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks for the elaboration. Can you please refer to how does Ealdgyth mention this? Also, SFR seems to mention this thread meaning the second, while Valereee was referring to SAILOING which relates to the second thread. As for the reply to IO, one admin's sanctions proposal, which did not seem to gain support, is not equivalent in my view to a rough consensus for ARCA referral. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I slightly misread what Ealdgyth wrote and so while I expect they would be in favor they didn't actually express it in that thread. I diffed two admin who were supportive of a broad 0RR. I personally agree it did not get traction but neither was there a consensus abotu what to do in its place - there was a consensus among the uninvolved admin that edit warring had occurred. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I appreciate that. You are certainly much more experienced here than I am, both as an editor and an admin; it seems me an alternative course of action would have been to reignite the discussion that had died out to see where admin opinions have converged at AE, similar to the kind of interventions that SFR does there. From my point of view, the single revert that I made while being communicative, being escalated to a lengthy and time-consuming ARCA review, seems like an very steep and inadvertent escalation. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to engage on the substance of your actions at WP:ARCA as it's currently up to ArbCom whether or not to take any action. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I would gladly do so but the basis of the referral does not seem to have been a consensus for that, especially for the first thread and the editors involved. If you don't mind me pinging @Ealdgyth: @ScottishFinnishRadish: @Valereee: for their kind input. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade has also expressed support at ARCA for the referral so I'm pinging them. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far as my thoughts on it, I was actually in the midst of reviewing the first thread, and doing a deeper dive into the second, when Barkeep49 made the referral, so I hadn't commented further yet (I may if a case is accepted and there's an evidence phase; I did keep track of several things I found in doing so). But one thing doing so made abundantly clear is that it's the type of tangled mess it would be difficult if not impossible to meaningfully resolve at AE, and a more deliberative process, like ArbCom, will almost certainly be superior to any bandaid solution AE could try to apply. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I was seeing was uninvolved admins expressing concern AE couldn't deal with this stuff and implicitly or explicitly arguing it might need arbcom. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also chalk me up as supporting a referral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an issue with supporting a referral. I had plans to review things this evening since my week has been insanely busy, and would likely have weighed in suggesting a referral this evening ... Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I will be commenting there shortly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Butterscotch Beluga. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not accusing you, but you're mentioned. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Well, using the passive voice could have saved you the hassle of notifying me. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry being eager, but would be nice if you could respond to me comment here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

Motion 2b: Word limits

Motion 2c: Word limits

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

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:

• BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
• Ïvana (talk · contribs)
• Levivich (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
• האופה (talk · contribs)
• AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
• Alaexis (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs)

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.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

This is to inform you that your technical request for a move of the Rashid Ṭaliʽa article has been contested. You can still request the move by following the "Controversial moves" procedure - see WP:PCM. Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:28, 2 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 two referrals 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.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=prev&oldid=1261573062 You seem to, again, have distorted information based on the need for Lead brevity. This edit makes it sound like Israel have controlled 2/3 or the Golan heights since 1967. You have done the same in these edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1263209557 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1263209396 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1250163530 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1250430982 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1251828828 , and possibly more. These edits all have one thing in common, they remove key information from a lead in an Article relating to Israel. I find it hard to imagine this as a coincidence. None of them are reasonably justified or involved any discussion. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing your edit summary on Golan Heights, which seemed a bit out of the blue. Having now seen the diffs, the majority of these edits all seem perfectly fine and defensible. I'd agree with most of them on the basis of being concise alone. Your 2/3 comment is strange, since surely it's more favourable to Israel to say it occupied less of a given territory for that whole time than to say they occupied all of it but gave some back a while later? I don't object to your edit, but I'm not sure it's evidence of bias, at any rate.

Sorry for butting in, but this seems like a misunderstanding? Lewisguile (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrainman, what you find hard to imagine is your problem, not Wikipedia's, and not something you need to be bothering other editors about. If you disagree with an edit, you know what to do, open a discussion on the talk page of the article. Also, read WP:VANDAL and only use the word vandalism to describe vandalism. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makeandtoss, in the open Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the ban passes as proposed, I suggest that you:

1. Improve the vast majority of the Jordan article, which has nothing to do with Israel and ad a result is not covered by the ban, to FA stattus.
2. When you are close to finishing #1, request an ammendment to the decision. This ammendment should explicitly be written to cover the article, its talk page, and the FA nomination process for the article; it should not look like you're appealing the ban, only asking permission to finish dealing with the one article.
3. Be extremely careful not to make any edit in violation of the ban, and to avoid any behaviorwhich lead to the ban. Also note, if the exception is approved, any non-neutral editing would be counterproductive to making it FA. If the exception is approved, use it only for the purpose of bringing the article to FA status.
4. Requesting the exception the first time doesn't need to wait the entire 12 months, but should certainly wait a few weeks and be fairly close to when you've finished all parts of the article not covered by the ban.

Animal lover |666| 18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Animal lover 666 I appreciate your advice is given in good faith, but I'm not so sure its good advice. That article mentions "Israel" 34 times in prose alone, and either "Palestine" or "Palestinian" another 30 times. Then there are mentions of Jordan river, Dead sea, which are geographic features shared with Israel. It would be good to get some admin guidance on this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about what happened to you and the others. Will remember the great work you all have done over the past year and a half. JDiala (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hope arbcom changes decision, or you win appeal whenever.

Thank you for all the hardwork. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that it has come to this, you have truly did a service for posterity. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• 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)[reply]

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