User talk:Marokwitz/Archives/2024/January

request: your attention to unfactual claim

Hi! You made an edit that I believe is unfactual. It's all summarized here, I'd appreciate your attention. thank you!

Eladve (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Zikim Naval Operation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate commentary

Commentary like If you (or any other editor) truly believe the lead of this article currently represents a neutral point of view, then, in my opinion, your EC authorization should be revoked, as you have clearly not internalized the policies is inappropriate personalization of talk page discussion. Do not continue this behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Marokwitz (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish While acknowledging that my previous response was out of line, I am very disappointed that administrators are allowing the creation of "attack articles" that cherrypick a specific POV from content of other articles seem to completely ignore any shred of a neutral point of view. How do you expect Wikipedia not to turn into a battleground if people are allowed to do such things with impunity.

I am very disappointed that blatant personal attacks on me are ignored by administrators who actively participate in the discussion [1].

I am very disappointed that constructive and polite editors are losing edit rights in clear contradiction to the policy [2] and with other editors getting unfair "celebrity treatment".

I am also extremely disappointed that completely baseless reporting of me on the administrator noticeboard with false accusations, and "forum shopping" [3] is ignored (I know you were ill; this and the above criticism are not directed at you specifically, of course). Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators have no special authority to determine whether an article that does not meet a highly specific list of categories should exist. We cannot unilaterally decide something is a POVFORK and delete it ourselves. WP:AFD is the process we have in place to handle that.

Involved administrators will (at least should) not take any administrative actions in topics where they are WP:INVOLVED. If you believe that there is a behavioral issue you can bring it to WP:AE or WP:ANI. There are millions of words of discussion across dozens, if not hundreds, of related articles. Uninvolved administrators cannot actively monitor each and every one of them.

I disagree with how you're framing this. The nuances of how this is being handled are still being hashed out, and there are a lot of different views from a lot of different people. That is why so many of those cases are going to AN right now. There is no clear consensus on where the community sees the line for gaming of the EC permission.

The report wasn't ignored, at least one editor was warned and administrators reviewed the discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish , thank you for your response. It's clear you're one of the administrators actively engaged in addressing issues. However, I'm currently feeling under attack and it seems to me, there is a lack of a fair justice system in place to offer protection. The extent of editorial violence, bias, and a prevailing sense of unfairness in Wikipedia has been overwhelming. I am considering taking a break due to these circumstances. Marokwitz (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I totally get what you are saying, and I think the community would benefit if you could set down your feelings and experiences, either on-wiki or off. You're a long-time contributor and your thoughts matter. I share your frustration. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The essay WP:NOJUSTICE covers this a bit. There is no justice system in place, merely our WP:PAGS which aren't designed to provide justice, but to allow constructive editing.

When it comes to the unfairness, that's a common complaint in almost every topic area. There's no easy answer to it, or it would have been handled by now. As far as bias goes, it's fair to assume that many editors see you as the biased editor. Except in plainly clear cut cases of disruption there's really nothing administrators can do about editorial bias. With ARBPIA, especially with the current war, most editors involved carry some amount of bias. If you have evidence that there is disruptive bias at play your best bet is to make a clear and concise report at WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Every editor has their biases, and I acknowledge I am no different. That's not my problem. What I liked about Wikipedia over the years is that, through processes of editing and debate, articles tended to move in a more balanced direction, a direction that has enlightened me as a reader and editor about the viewpoint and arguments of the opposing side. However, these processes have recently become completely broken.

I am also totally shocked by the "wikilawyering" used to justify "attack articles." These articles are designed to allow inclusion only of sources that take a specific point of view, effectively bypassing the neutral point of view.

And perhaps even more concerning, I have a feeling that some very talented, very experienced members of this site are communicating behind the scenes with the aim to discredit or silence editors they dislike. I wish I had a proof for such a serious concern but the events occurring recently don't seem coincidental. Marokwitz (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Take the articles to AFD. That's the process for finding out community consensus agrees with your position that they are NPOV-fork attack articles. And keep in mind that sometimes we have to accept that consensus is against our position. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This never works. For example, take WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nakba_denial, an article that even successfully reached DYK despite protests Talk:Nakba_denial#Did_you_know_nomination. The problem is that while the topics are notable, framing the article title in this manner inherently restricts the presentation of the subject in a way that prevents a balanced presentation. Such topic would be much more likely to be discussed in a balanced fashion under Nakba. Our current system and policies encourage the creation of POV-specific articles. Marokwitz (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Marokwitz I would suggest obtaining wide community input on that AfD. There is really nothing else that can be done. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Sorry, this was presumptuous of me. I wrote this before I noticed how long you've been a contributor. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you. Marokwitz (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your contributions to the "email" Arbcom case were very good, and unfortunately it appears that they are being shrugged off. As I mentioned above, I share your more general concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Kidnapping of Yarden Roman-Gat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kidnapping of Yarden Roman-Gat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Yarden Roman-Gat 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.

نعم البدل (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)