Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Gender topic alert, Which code should be applied?

@ Template:Alert/first four codes seem to be available for gender topics. For example I wish to alert Daddystelios (contribs link). Which code one should prefer to apply?

Bookku (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Any will work. All will generate the same template afaik EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, choose any. Some topics have multiple codes for historical reasons, and all of them will produce the same result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a look at the article for CTOP

Though contentious topic area but the article Hijab usually might not have seen much edit warring before. I am not sure it's still ANI or ARE level yet. But this time some thing seems to be unusual needs more watch listing of the article and Idk what is the right time for additional page or CTOP restrictions wish some one looks into present disruptions.

Requesting a look at the recent history of the article Hijab and Talk:Hijab.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Requests here get moved into the archives by a bot with some regularity, sometimes when consensus among commenting admins seems to be clear but no one has taken the extra step to implement and close. Should this page have time based archiving? It seems like a person ought to be making these determinations. MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably a bot should only archive hatted discussions after a couple days (I know cluebotIII can kind of do that but I think you can only use a template to mark for immediate archival which happens within a couple of hours). Galobtter (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this kind of rhetoric permitted on I/P talk pages?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not quite sure where to go with this, so I am posting it here. Could an admin or arb look at this diff. "Zionist enitty"? Really? A word search of the page shows that this is not the first time that this particular nomenclature has been used by editors on that extremely contentious, battlefield-beset talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The user's talk page may be a first step; I have notified them now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I was on the fence as to where to go with this. No, I did not consider going to any user pages, and frankly, unless the term was used accidentally, I'm not sure it would be fruitful since it has been used repeatedly. If this is not right for my query, I guess this can be closed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Coretheapple, wherever you report this and put it up for discussion, you'll have to notify those you're practically, even if not directly, asking administrative action against. A WP:ANI thread with a list of *{{userlinks|...}} lines at its top might be an idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

By its own admittance, Israel is an ethnostate. By its own admittance, Israel is a Zionist project. I see no issue with referring to it as a Zionist entity as it is a racist entity and not a state. Before judging my reasonable word choice, I ask that arbitrators review the OP's own behavior on the talk page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you find a different topic to work on. Any future in this area will surely be extremely brief. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That is very threatening. Why are you speaking to me in this way? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Using the most inflammatory wording to refer to things in a highly contentious topic made even more contentious by an active war is not appropriate. Zionist entity and IOF should both be avoided. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The talk page is full of references to Hamas as terrorists, a very pejorative term, and many other terms describing the organization including ironically "terrorist genocidal organization". The term Zionist entity, as stated in our article, is common parlance in the Arab world to refer to Israel. Are we saying only what is acceptable in the western world is acceptable on Wikipedia? The term Zionist is accepted by the Israelis themselves. It is factual description of the ethnostate. Zionsism is literally written into the laws by name.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that when I see those phrases used as personal commentary about Hamas rather than discussion regarding sources I warn for that behavior as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You are essentially saying that I cannot refer to Israel as anything but Israel. In order to participate in the discussion, every time I refer to the country, I have to legitimize it. What is an acceptable alternative for you? Can I refer to it as the "Zionist country"? Do you realize that I consider what you are advocating for as anti-Palestinian racism. That insisting on the use of the term Israel is itself inflammatory "personal commentary". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment, analogous to uniformly referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, to the Gülenist movement as FETÖ, or to the US as Amerikkka. The phrase is rooted in the historical views of states and organizations that refuse to recognize Israel diplomatically, and is the equivalent of signing off all your messages with "I think Israel is bad". Obviously, most people editing these topics have an opinion as to whether the various factions of the conflict are good or bad (and with what to each individual feels like good, even unassailable reason), but if our goal is to write a neutral encyclopedia article, terminology that is not used by neutral RS and which inherently expresses the views of one side of the conflict is a recipe for more fighting and less writing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Eloquently put. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The usage of the term "Zionist" beyond its original context can be a subject of controversy, particularly when employed as "The Zionist entity has engaged in a huge information war" to derogatorily refer to Israel and the Jewish community as a whole. It is imperative that we refrain from engaging in name-calling and instead employ official and impartial terminology, allowing rational judgment to prevail over emotional biases. Ultimately, if one finds it difficult to maintain neutrality and manage personal biases, it may be advisable to reconsider active participation on Wikipedia, as it strives to uphold a neutral standpoint. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 17:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never spoken about the Jewish community here or on the talk page. You are conflating Zionism with Judaism, which is itself anti-semitic. Please do not equate the actions of Israel with Judaism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. While we are allowed quite a bit of latitude for expressing our own personal views in some venues here (but not all venues), we also want to avoid bringing more heat than light. That just starts flamewars and turns the situation into a partisan warzone, rather than a collaborative group of editors who, although they have personal opinions that are often very different, can collaborate and keep their focus on documenting what RS say. There is a big difference between consistently calling Trump a treasonous "#PutinsPuppet" (quite offensive and inflammatory to some editors) and discussing the RS, world leaders, and leaders of intelligence agencies who call him exactly that, all in the context of documenting the use of such epithets about him in article content. The first is an unnecessary poking of the bear that will derail the purpose of the thread, and the second is a constructive and necessary effort to improve article content, regardless of how controversial and offensive the word(s). Just avoid soapboxing in the wrong venues. Conversations on your talk page are different from the proper use of article talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I often refer to America as Turtle Island. Are you saying that is also not allowed? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that my use of the term Zionist entity does help build a better Wikipedia. It is important to note that I don't look for opportunities to use the term. In fact, I try to find every opportunity to not use the term. However, there are instances when talking about the ongoing genocide and the war that I find myself having to refer to the Zionist entity. When such occassions arise, rather that use the biased term Israel to refer to the entity, I use the term Zionist entity which is a factual description of the government. I am happy to use alternatives if people prefer: the occupiers, the Israeli forces, etc... But saying I have to call it Israel and nothing else is ridiculous and not conducive to collaborative environment that includes a variety of viewpoints.

Unless you are saying that only those that recognize Israel's right to exist can edit on Wikipedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This is plain description. Is anyone claiming that the Israeli state cannot be termed using this descriptor? It's not really contested language. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand the very broadbrush behavioural principle here, but it seems like WP:NOTBURO territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we not allowed to call the Chinese government the communist regime? Or Syria's government the Baathist state? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.