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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

For that revert, I just assumed that and even edited at that article beforehand which I will now have to undo. Is it the case there is no article about that strike anywhere? Selfstudier ( talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No worries, I had to triple check before adding the paragraph to be sure it was a different airstrike, given the date and location. I don't believe there's a separate article about it on Wikipedia. The Jabalia camp strikes received a ton of press at the time, so it seems like the Engineers' Building strike flew under the radar until Human Rights Watch released their statement today. Gaza City was being encircled at the time, and under heavy repeated bombardment, so it's not too surprising this one didn't pick up any press when it was concurrent with the Jabalia camp strikes. entropyandvodka | talk 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I added another source, which Human Rights Watch mentioned. I was mistaken about the location, as Google Maps shows another building called The Engineers Building (3-4 miles from Jabalia refugee camp). The Airwars website gives an exact set of coordinates of the attack, which is about 8 miles south of the Jabalia refugee camp. They also gave a higher casualty count than HRW, but I guess HRW said "at least" and only reported what they could also verify. Airwars calls the building Al-Muhandeseen Tower, "the Engineers Tower". Here's their report: https://airwars.org/civilian-casualties/ispt0784-october-31-2023/ The sources also agree that the location was in close proximity to the Nuseirat Camp. entropyandvodka | talk 22:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:

1. 02:22, 21 April 2024
2. 07:05, 21 April 2024

Please self-revert 07:05 - see also MOS:CLAIM. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My intention with the second edit wasn't to revert; but to expand and to contextualize the original sentence (not a reversal of your edit), and to better structure the sources of that paragraph. Since you're taking that as a revert, I'll go ahead and undo it, but intend to reinstate the same material later tonight.

It would be best for us to reach a consensus if you have a specific issue with the edit, the content it pertains to, or the sources used (the report itself was a new source I added; the UN news page was already cited in that paragraph, the quoted portion being in an embedded video on that page).

Regarding MOS:SAID, MOS:CLAIM, do you have a specific point you'd like to make? Your original edit, the one I DID revert, was not in line with that section of MOS, in my view. The report the edit discussed (and cited), is the written report of the rapporteur's findings. Her comments were made in conjunction with the submission of the report, explaining the findings of the report. The relevant detail isn't that she said something, it's the findings of the report.

Omitting the fact that these were the findings of her report, and simply saying she 'said' the remarks, makes it sound no different than someone expressing personal opinion in an informal way. This would be misleading.

If you have no issue with my second edit, which I've now reverted, feel free to undo my reversion if we're in agreement. If not, let's discuss it. entropyandvodka | talk 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My issue with your second edit is that it goes against the source, and that it goes against MOS:SAID.

I'll also note that your self-revert comment, which said Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons, was inappropriate; you are seeing WP:1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit. In addition, I'm not convinced that reinstating the self-reverted comment seven hours later (and just 23 hours after first instating it) is appropriate; at best, it feels like gaming the restrictions, at worst it feels like another 1RR violation. I would ask that you again self-revert it. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There was the initial revert, over a single word choice, then the additional material, all of which was fully relevant and sourced, and sought to resolve the issue the original reverts were over to begin with; this was also a day after the original edit to include the material that, at your request, I had self-reverted. I'm not trying to circumvent the process, but to get the article as clear and informative as possible. A lot of it still needs work.

Regarding her spoken comments, we do use the word "said". Regarding her written report, the source [1] says "Rights expert finds ‘reasonable grounds’ genocide is being committed in Gaza". The report is also provided as a source. I'm not sure how you can argue this goes against the source when it's near verbatim to the source.

How would you write that section, without losing any sources or information? entropyandvodka | talk 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to get too deeply into the content dispute here - you violated 1RR with the edit on 07:05, 21 April 2024, you self-reverted only to reinstate again at 06:18, 22 April 2024. I don't believe that is appropriate, and I am asking you self-revert again to remedy any gaming/1RR violations.

To touch briefly on the content dispute, we say the report "found Israel was committing genocide". That is against MOS:SAID, and against the independent source we use which say "she believed that Israel's military campaign in Gaza since Oct. 7 amounted to genocide". BilledMammal ( talk) 03:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you please direct me to the consensus you're referring to in this revert? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The discussion at the top of the talk page of the article regarding the title of the page, which reached the consensus that the title should follow the same naming conventions of other similar pages. It stands to reason (and WP:CONSISTENT) that things like the short description should also follow the conventions of other articles. Other short description examples:

Russia: Violations of the laws of war committed by the Russian Federation

United States: War crimes perpetrated by the U.S. and its armed forces

Britain: War crimes perpetrated by the United Kingdom and its armed forces

etc

entropyandvodka | talk 02:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply