Hello Onlineone22, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus proteststoWikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:
The Teahouse - ask Wikipedians for general editing help
I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.
~Liancetalk20:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi, you've added a lot of unreferenced content. Please either reference it all or remove the unreferenced parts.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Thank you for your comment! I ensured that all of the content included in the article has references linked in their corresponding sections. That said, I will work on making these references more organized so as not to wrongly appear to be unreferenced, and I will leave a follow-up comment once I am finished so that you can let me know whether my changes are sufficient!
I've rearranged some of my references, including of the amount of students arrested.
Could you please let me know where, specifically, you believe there is unreferenced content on the article (or, alternatively, add "citation needed" to the parts that you believe are unreferenced?)
Hi, have added citation needed tags. It is particularly necessary to have a reference after a quote. I know this is a bit laborious but it really improves the article and deters editors from gutting or rewriting it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onlineone22! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
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.
Ah sorry, I just wanted to update that point because I felt like that part of my comment was a bit redundant or unproductive after further analysis. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the conversation.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
.... related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Requesting assistance editing Ohio State University protest article.. Basically we have an editor who created an article who's no longer able to edit it due to increased protection level. Is there a possibility to allow them to edit the article they create for us all.... to continue their positive contributions to it....thus avoiding time wasting for other editors responding to requests..... So
The editor is free to ask for the necessary permission to edit the article at WP:PERM; community support such as yourself would probably help. They can also ask for the protection level to be reduced at WP:RFPP, unless it's clear that it is necessary. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I attempted to regain permissions by making a request in the extended confirmed requests page, but despite thinking I'm a good faith actor, they shot me down for arbitrary bureaucratic reasons:
I worry about future vandalism on the article, so I would like to ensure the protection level is kept at its current state. If there's another way I could go about gaining permission to edit the article, (@331dot, I'd be very appreciative of other suggestions) then I am certainly all ears.
@Moxy, I will add edit requests to the page in the meantime. Thank you very much for your help.
I don't think that it was arbitrary or bureaucratic. The people who hand out permissions(such as me, although I rarely do so as it's not a focus area for me) have to consider the effects of their actions on the project.
I didn't know what article you had created- I assume that as a relatively new user you weren't aware of the restrictions around editing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when you created your draft. (I see you were notified later) That was fine, but now you know, and you'll need to abide by them. I think edit requests are your way forward. Technically you could puruse your request for EC permission further, but it would probably take awhile, draw your focus away from making edit requests, and in the end either 1) probably not be successful or 2) you'll have gained extended-confirmed organically through your edits/time passed. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! Sorry for calling it arbitrary and bureaucratic. You are probably right that these are not the right words to use—I've just been a bit disheartened by the whole situation since it's made it so difficult for me to make much-needed updates to the article.
How could I pursue my request for EC permission further? I was shut down when I attempted to prolong the conversation after receiving my initial rejection.
As someone who hands out permissions, what do you think my best approach is in terms of talking points if I want to persuade other admins to grant me early EC permissions?
Being someone who hands out permissions, is there any set of conditions that, given I agree to abide by them, would open you up to the possibility of granting me early EC perms?
As I said above, although I am technically able to grant permissions, it's not an area I work in. I've only modified user rights 83 times(according to my stats on my user page) and I think 99% of those-if not all of them- are just to give IP block exemptions. It's just not something that I'm interested in doing, and I decline to make an exception to that general practice here.
I am very, very reluctant to give you advice on how to do something that I don't think is a good use of your time and may take up the time of others, who then might rightfully be annoyed that I did so and affect my ability to work with them. I think the chances of you finding a consensus in any sort of community process to override the good faith decision of the reviewing admin is low. Given that this involves a formally designated contentious topics restriction technically you could ask ArbCom- but that will take time and draw your attention away from proposing edits, and probably will not be successful(if they grant you an exception, they have to grant anyone who asks one). I do not recommend that you pursue this further, even if you technically can. You might very well get 30/500 organically by the time any appeal is decided. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. In that case, I won't pursue it further. I only wish that someone would attend the edits I have been proposing on the talk page because I added edit markers to this page to no avail. Is there anything else I could try when it comes to getting people to help implement my talk page edit suggestions? Onlineone22 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests are monitored by volunteers; there's really no way to speed up the process or otherwise guarantee that your requests will be looked at immediately. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not that far from getting EC. In the interim, I suggest reading some of Wikipedia's core policies if you have not already: Neutral point of view (NPOV, paying close attention to Due and undue weight), Verifiability (V), Original research (OR) and Biographies of living people (BLP, which applies to any content anywhere on Wikipedia regarding a living person including talk pages). Some of your edit requests fall afoul of these policies (probably not BLP but certainly NPOV). I also suggest reading some of the discussions that have occurred at Talk:Israel–Hamas war including a couple of the archives to get a sense of NPOV and sourcing expectations. Also check out the WP:Task center. Out of almost 7 million articles you are only restricted from editing a very few (well less than 1%) so focus on other areas for a while. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you pointing out my edits violate NPOV. Could you by any chance give me a couple examples of where my edit suggestions come across as biased so I can improve upon them?
Hey @Adolphus79, sorry about that. I didn't realize you made changes to the punctuation/overlinking and was just trying to add some hyperlinks for ease-of-access. I won't update existing punctuation and hyperlinks in the future on the page if there's already unity around this issue.
I reverted back to the last good revision, because you made multiple edits regarding the punctuation and overlinking. Feel free to re-add the Johnson section. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I'll re-add the Johnson and Carter sections.
I generally try to include a period at the end of captions on images. Is this considered bad practice on Wiki? If so, I can avoid doing this in the future.
I said to restore the Johnson section, not the excerpt about Carter. The excerpt in notable people is overweighted since no one else has a paragraph (as they shouldn't if it's just a list of people). As for the punctuation, if it is not a complete sentence, there shouldn't be a period at the end, this is for captions, lists, etc. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks for explaining. Didn't realize you were opposed to adding back the Carter section based on your response, but your explanation makes sense.
To bug you one final time, do you agree it makes sense to remove the info on "Michael V. Drake became the 15th president of Ohio State in 2014. In 2020, Kristina M. Johnson took office as the 16th president. And in 2023, Walter E. Carter Jr. took office as the 17th president.", etc and replace this with the "see more: list of osu presidents" section at the bottom? I think it makes more sense for that section to take the form of a link to that list Wiki article. Otherwise, we might as well include a list of all university presidents in this page, unless you think it's especially important to mention by name the most recent university presidents.
(Hopefully) resolving this issue, I made a change that's a compromise: I added the list hyperlink above the description of the last 3 presidents. Onlineone22 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject, but... I think, unless they are notable enough for their own article, or they did something of note during their tenure as president, we should be fine with just the few most recent and a link to the "list of" article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. As a side note, if you're interested in topics in Ohio, if you could help me get some of my suggestions added on the OSU Gaza Solidarity Encampment talk page, that would be greatly appreciated. I pretty much created the whole article but lost editing permission after it gained "extended-protected" status, so I've just been hanging out making edit suggestions all alone in the talk page with no one stopping by to help (as I have a bit longer to wait until I get extended-protected perms).
As for the OSU page issue, I think it's fair to say our disagreement is resolved.
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR and WP:CANVAS violations,, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban[edit]
You are topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for six months
You have been sanctioned for canvassing, ECR violations, and needing to understand the WP:PAGS and community norms before being able to avoid disruption in the topic area
I hope it is alright if I could explain my perspective behind this situation, and therefore explain my reasoning behind an alternative punishment I think is most reasonable.
I put a lot of time into creating the 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests article from the ground-up since this is something of which I have a lot of knowledge, and I felt like I could make a positive impact by spending a lot of time on this article.
I lost access to the article (which I created) because they updated it to have extended-protected status, and after I appealed upgrading this account to extended-protected permissions in order to edit the article, I was rejected, which felt overly-bureaucratic and upsetting to me, but I accepted this decision.
As a result, I resorted to the only remaining option in order to keep the article up-to-date: I created sections on the article's talk page requesting for my edits to be made.
The original few sections I created were implemented by a very kind user. But the sections after went unanswered for weeks.
As a result, I started to get desperate to get these changes looked at and therefore implemented. I reached out to the user who originally added my changes, and I added blurbs on the WikiProject pages under which this article falls. No one helped.
Weeks later, I finally get a user on my talk page, @Adolphus79, interested in the article after I bumped into him on the Ohio State University page and he made very reasonable edits.
In this discussion, he criticizes the article for using Instagram as a source. I essentially argue that if organizers of the protest publish announcements for a protest through their Instagram and there is no reasonable doubt to the authenticity of this announcement, then there is no reason not to trust it. I make a well-thought out multi-paragraph argument making my case. In response, he leaves a curt condescending comment: "Did you fully read the links I provided? Like I said, this is not a personal opinion, this is a Wikipedia policy. The Dispatch is a good source, Instagram is not."
I respond by citing specific sections from 3 WP articles supporting that Instagram is sometimes a good source. He ignores this, and then he proceeds to begin removing a plethora of information from the article, including verified information, often because he made the claim that Instagram is never a good source.
I begin to panic. I leave a lot of new talk page comments @ mentioning him, asking why he is removing so much information from my article, providing him with the necessary sources and evidence to substantiate my claims. He ignores every single new talk page comment I leave.
He goes through every single talk page section post I previously made on the article and says "not done", "not done", "not done" ending every comment with condescending ellipses, not implementing a single talk page suggestion I made (except the removal of an unnecessary period) despite the fact a previous Wiki user found no issues with my talk page suggestions when I first lost perms to the article, often on the basis of my suggestion being obsolete due to his deletion of so much information from my article. New sections or new media I ask him to add he completely ignores if he doesn't have an easy reason to dismiss.
At this point, he has removed essential information from the article ("students criticized the sniper", which is verifiably true, which I provide evidence for in the article talk page). He has rejected or ignored every single proposal (minus the period removal) that I made for the document. And he is refusing to engage in *any* discussion surrounding his deletion of so much of this article, despite the fact I have been consistently citing my sources and attempting to engage in good-faith discussion with him surrounding his actions.
Yes, I engaged in canvassing in a state of panic after forgetting to present my issue in an unbiased tone. Yes, I assumed he was biased for all the aforementioned reasons, especially due to the fact that all his changes were always destructive and never constructive. I deserve to be punished for this, and blocking me from making edits for 1 week is reasonable and I will be more careful in the future not to do this again.
But I do not believe I should be topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict for 6 months. My actions were not a result of political bias, but out of frustration with this user for all the aforementioned reasons, not least his condescending tone and refusal to engage in good-faith discussion regarding his mass-removal of information from the article. The fact I could not even revert some of his changes which have information verifying their truth because this account is under 1 month old further compounded that frustration.
Please let me know if you need me to cite sources for any of my claims. I also am open to discussion of how to make this situation better. Thank you.
Please stop assuming bad faith in my edits, and please stop calling it "your article". I did try to discuss it with you, immediately before you got blocked, but you have never responded. As for the edit requests, a number of them were made obsolete by later edits to the article. A large part of this article failed WP:UNDUE, you had entire paragraphs worth of direct quotes from the sources, instead of just a quick quote or summary. You had multiple statements sourced by blogs, instagram posts, etc. with zero mention in any reliable sources, then wanted to argue that an unverified claim on an organization's own blog that involves claims about third parties not only passes WP:SELFSOURCE, but deserves multiple paragraphs in the article. You wanted to transcribe your handwritten transcript of a youtube video, with timestamps, into the article instead of providing a reliable source to verify the speaker's claims. You have treated the talk page of the article as your own personal sandbox, including deleting a large chunk of discussion with the edit summary "Archived obsolete discussion" (without making an archive). You wanted to source an entire section with "in a video of what appears to be X according to protesters and in an unverified public statement by protesters", and claim that just because no reliable sources reported on the event, it still deserved an entire section of hearsay in the Wikipedia article. I tried to explain this all to you, between the talk page discussions and my edit summaries, and instead of reading the policies or discussing it, you decided to canvass other talk pages to drum up support for your own way of doing things (including tagging me in all 4 copies of the message in which you claim I am editing to "slant it to be more favorable to the anti-Palaestinian administration" and want others to "revert my changes"). I asked you once before, please provide the diffs of which of my edits you feel violated Wikipedia policy. Also, how are ellipses condescending? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for clarity, please note that you blew up the talk page at 11:00p.m. (my time) on July 4, and I had other plans that evening that did not involve Wikipedia. I apologize that I did not respond immediately to your multiple edit requests that evening. To be honest, I was tired of arguing with you about Wikipedia policy, and had taken a step back, until you tagged me in your canvassing. Then, a few days later, I went through and answered a few of the (over 2 dozen) edit requests you had made that were against policy or already resolved/no longer an issue. I purposely did not close any that may require discussion, hoping another uninvolved editor might come along to help form a consensus. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your passion is commendable, but I think this is an example of the need to sometimes slow down. Editing is a collaborative process and these rules, formed by consensus over decades, are there to keep things working smoothly. A lot of the things you've been doing have been unfortunately disruptive. Wikipedia has no time limit and it's not a newspaper. Sourcing is extremely important here and there's a reason some things are reliable sources and some things aren't. Sometimes, when an article is so important to a person, it becomes hard to see the forest for the trees.
And while it's unfortunately you got a topic ban, these areas are ones that are ones that are overflowing with a lot of controversy and a tendency for Wikipedia's processes to break down. So there's a very high standard for decorum in these areas. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response shows the reason that I believe the topic ban is necessary. You're going to reach extended-confirmed mostly by violating WP:ECR, and without having the necessary understanding of proper behavior on Wikipedia, and the elevated standard in WP:CTOPs. An example from above is And he is refusing to engage in *any* discussion surrounding his deletion of so much of this article, despite the fact I have been consistently citing my sources and attempting to engage in good-faith discussion with him surrounding his actions. You can not engage in discussion about ARBPIA topics. You can not canvas, you do not WP:OWN an article you create. I placed the six month topic ban so that you must gain experience with other areas of Wikipedia before blundering though this minefield. That's also why I went with a time-limited sanction rather than an indefinite-until-appeal sanction.
If you wish to appeal the topic ban you'll have to decide on the venue, either WP:AN, the administrators' noticeboard where you'll need a clear consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn the sanction, or WP:AE, the arbitration enforcement board, where the discussion is more structured and you'll need a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn the sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
