User talk:Amayorov

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this relates to my adding Benny Morris as a "See Also" to Ilan Pappé's page. Benny Morris's is a protected page, and I didn't edit it directly. Both Morris and Pappé belong to a group called "New Historians" – I thought it'd be useful to link the two. I hope it's all right. Amayorov (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were of a good quality, so nothing wrong there. However unfortunately Wikipedia has strict rules about who can and can't edit topics involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Specifically, "you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days" to edit any content which is to do with the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. You may however make Wikipedia:Edit requests. Let me know if you have any questions about this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sukhoi Shkval, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawker. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was a mistake, and I will correct it. Amayorov (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I have responded to your accusations there. Instead of engaging constructively, pointing out what exactly you disagree, you've resorted to edit-warring, seeming for ideological purposes.

If you ever choose to discuss my work itself, I will also be happy. But so far, our interactions have been wholly unproductive. Amayorov (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Amayorov. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peretz (Russian TV channel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pepper.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: College marriage (university) (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

Author's request.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:College marriage (university) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amayorov! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Reagan peace plan. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Diannaa! Thanks for pointing out the issue! I see that you've put an inline attribution at the end of each copied paragraph (instead of a single attribution at the start) and added a Template:Source-attribution. I will make sure to comply with WP:FREECOPY now on. Are the changes you've made sufficient, or are there any additional edits required for that particular article? Amayorov (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This particular one is okay now. The reason I prefer to put the citation after the content is that it makes it clearer which text was copied, and/or exactly which sentences or paragraphs the citation supports. — Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! Amayorov (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEONING. Specifically at this RfC. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Amayorov (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there any way for you to post general information about or a description of the "evidence circulating online of potential WP:TAGTEAMing and WP:CANVASSing by bad-faith editors from both sides" that would not be redacted by admins? I assume that means no named individuals, but targeted pages would presumably be okay. Or maybe you could wiki-mail me some links. I understand why this kind of thing gets redacted on-wiki but it makes it much harder to figure out how external factors are impacting the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to add some general information in a comment. Thanks for the suggestion! Amayorov (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. The Israeli government spends millions on Israel's reputation in social media and several times the Israeli press has reported classes being held on how to promote Israel on Wikipedia. If private Palestinian-oriented groups can get remotely close to that, it would be a miracle. Zero^talk 12:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC) This one is a bit old but representative. To claim that the "other side" is the only one doing this sort of thing would be quite false. Zero^talk 12:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that only "the other side" is engaging in malicious activity. I explicitly said "by bad-faith editors from both sides". The incident with Naftali Bennett from 2010 is a good example. However, when the case is as blatant as the one I was referring to, we should remain especially vigilant.

I'd also disagree with your statement that, "if private Palestinian-oriented groups can get remotely close to that, it would be a miracle." There're dozens of actors, state (e.g. Iran, Qatar) or private, who can have a lot of bad influence. Amayorov (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of Iranian or Qatari influence on Wikipedia, or is this just baseless conjecture? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example: Wikipedia Entries Manipulated In Line With Iran’s Propaganda, Wikipedia’s challenges in Iran.

Look, this isn't a debate about whether disinformation and canvassing by Group A should be ignored, while Group B should be censured. In this particular case, certain activists' behaviour was especially glaring, but I'm calling attention to malicious activity by both sides. Amayorov (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the 'Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia' article a while back, but given that the Wikipedia for Palestine youtube stuff they talk about has only been watched by tens of people it didn't strike me as important. What I have noticed is that Reddit threads can sometimes result in bursts of on-wiki activity. Evidence of off-wiki coordination is obviously hard to get. We have the Camera case of course from years ago. And we have the AndresHerutJaim canvassing evidence that resulted in an ArbCom case. And maybe there was something related to Electronic Intifada, I forget. One thing that can be said with confidence is that the use of deception via sockpuppetry in the topic area is common. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I think it’s more about meatpuppetry and stealth canvassing. I’ve wikimailed you a link to another article Amayorov (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland Here’s another example. It doesn’t seem to be particularly minor, given that there are 8k users on that Discord.

https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/2024/08/how-pro-hamas-operatives-collaborate-to.html

Let me know if this is problematic, but this particular blog is already linked in the AE case. Amayorov (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's problematic in that it's an attack site, but it's the Tech for Palestine Discord channel that interests me. I meant to have a look at it at some point but forgot what it was called, so thanks for that. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not any obvious overlap there. The first story is happenings in the Iranian politics topic, which is a separate CT, and the second is about Persian Wikipedia. That's not discussion, let alone evidence of influence in the ARBPIA CT on English Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naive proposal

I like the idea. Just a friendly reminder to sign and date the post. You may want to backdate it to when you entered it on the page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you! Amayorov (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course no chance whatsoever that your idea will be adopted. Wikipedia has been an abysmal failure in this topic area and there is no reason to think that unbroken record of failure will be interrupted by adoption of your very good idea! LOL. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]