Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, 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.

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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Just... . You deleted my edit [1], then you put my source back in [2] and an account named "ScienceFlyer" "enhanced" that phrase with a conclusion, that rates both sources in that phrase as basically idiotic, without any reference behind his conclusion - original research. Which doesn´t seem to trigger any response by you. Maybe that was the articles subject himself, but even that individual should at least have to reference his stuff. ** Alexpl ( talk) 14:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing out the OR issue. I reverted. If you see any further issues, please bring them up at the article talk page instead of here. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Why did you remove The Jacobin, The Nation and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor from the article Al-Shifa Hospital?, as you did here. Simply claiming that the Jacobin and the Nation are "niche" isn't exactly meaningful and I don't see how being a private NGO is a reason to exclude Euro-Med Monitor. Please be more cautious and do not remove well sourced and attributed content. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 15:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"Well sourced"? You didn´t even bother to format them and all three have problems. "Jacobin" and "the Nation" in particular are sources with a very limited range. But you presented them as being major opinions. Yes, "The Israeli operation has been referred to as a massacre", as you stated it, but by a socialist online newspaper and an arts magazine, who´s points and wording are not reflected by major publications - as far as I can tell. So they don´t really belong in the article. See Wikipedia:Due and undue weight. It states "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". Alexpl ( talk) 20:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not giving undue weight, it's just one paragraph presenting one significant point of view within RS, which both Jacobin and The Nation are (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). This view/assessment should absolutely be included with attribution.

Euro-Med Monitor also refers to the operation as a massacre and it's ambiguous if the statement of the UN special rapporteurs is referring to the Shifa operation specifically when it begins with "We are appalled by the massacre of civilians by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip." though it does describe it as an "atrocity" and seems to describe a massacre when it speaks of "The besieging and destruction of a hospital and the killing of health workers, the sick and wounded, and the people who protect them" and "the deliberate destruction of health infrastructure in Gaza".

So it's not exactly a WP:FRINGE view and neither is it given undue prominence.

- IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"Euro-Med Monitor" is a civilian NGO. They chose an official-sounding name, but have no special credibility. And I bet there is an almost unlimited supply of other wierd opinions in other dubious press publications. All worthy of representation in the article. This will be fun. Alexpl ( talk) 21:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We're not talking about "wierd opinions in dubious press publications", as I pointed out both The Nation and Jacobin are considered to be reliable sources and their views/assessments are attributed to them in the article.

- IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just because you found something on google, which uses the word "Al Shifa + massacre", doesn´t make that find a "reliable source". The source is called "the Jacobin", even with just a basic knowledge about history, that should be a red flag. Literally. Well, meanwhile I found a "Breitbart" article "https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/04/03/utter-disgrace-who-chief-slammed-over-abhorrent-gaza-hospital-post-ignoring-hamas-terror-hq-within/", it is also totally reliable and has to be quoted in the article, especially to put the stupid Tedros-quotes into context. David M. Friedman: "“The hospital was full of Hamas terrorists and weapons and they were shooting from inside the complex”" (...) Brian Lilley: "“If only the head of the World Health Organization would speak as forcefully against Hamas using hospitals as military bases as he does in speaking out against Israel clearing Hamas out of hospitals" (...) etc. pp. Alexpl ( talk) 12:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

All due respect but I'm not sure you have the required competence or temperament to be editing in this contentious topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 12:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That would be a great comment, but I do not measure by talkpage comments, just by work in the article - and your edits in the Al-Shifa article aren´t presentable. As displayed by the latest introduction of Friedman´s "ElectronicIntifada" [3] piece. And of course, nobody still cares for the opinion pieces by "Seraj Assi" or "Linah Alsaafin" you put in the article. If you ever manage to put their names in the references - that is. Alexpl ( talk) 10:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply