User talk:Fabius Lector

Continued from m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/Upcoming blog series on how Wikipedia works...

My comment was that "Enwiki ArbCom's remit is confined to user conduct, not to the content." Not everybody's. Just the committee.

There are 6 steps to resolve a content dispute. If ALL of them fail it, and the editors involved cannot engage meaningfully, or are entrenched in their positions, there are obviously conduct issues at play. If a discussion on the user talk page doesn't resolve it, and the administrators' noticeboard can't resolve it, then it may be brought before ArbCom. If the previous 8 steps haven't persuaded the editors to act in the best interests of producing an encyclopedia, and the ArbCom case request doesn't cause the users to reconsider their positions, you can bet it's 100% a user conduct issue.

Your other point, "without a certain expertise on the subject, whether directly or through trusted "experts"". How do you assess an editor's expertise without forcing them to doxx themselves? Who would choose the "experts" you propose? We go where the sources lead us, we don't search exclusively for sources that satisfy our preconceptions. Cabayi (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cabayi, my point is that cases can sometimes, by their very nature, concern content, even if the committee focuses on conducts. With PI5, for example, it is a topic, Palestine-Israel, and therefore content, that defines the case and the protagonists involved. Ultimately, the decisions impact the future treatment of the topic, with articles likely to be revised by looking at what the people involved in the conflict did.

I used the term "expert" in quotation marks because I'm thinking less of actual academic experts than of editors known for their good work on the subject and who are not involved in the problem at hand. For the necessary competence, the evidence page is full of statements that I'm not sure someone who doesn't master the subject can make, but, if I understand correctly, which are used by arbitrators, for example to decide whether or not there are POV forks. Four editors are listed, and for example, does this mean that the committee considers Boksi's opinion on the Nakba article legitimate? And if so, shouldn't there be consequences for the content? Can an editor refer to this decision to challenge the article as POV-Fork?

To clarify the reasons for my questions: I am mainly active on the French wiki but I am trying to understand if the committee is effective here on neutrality issues and how it works because the French committee is no longer active and this would be a reason to reactivate it for this same kind of problems. Fabius Lector (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The committee's response to the POV forking issue was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision#Community encouraged which, as a content issue, sends it back to the community for an RFC. Cabayi (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw your talk message on Boutbouls talk page. If you want EC rights early for this account, consider applying on Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed, and point out your contributions on fr, to see if an admin is ameliorable.
however, it seems only WP:LEGITSOCKS are allowed this usually, and other language projects are considered out of purview for this encyclopedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, Boutboul warned me about the restriction problem here, and I'm not sure I really have the time to contribute in English and French, so I'll see later if I ask for permissions. Fabius Lector (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 470#Request to Include The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam by Bat Ye’or as a Reliable Source. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)