User Talk: Levivich

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery ↗

Draft TBAN appeal

Hello, talk page watchers! It's been a year since I was TBANed at WP:PIA5 ↗ for "consistently non-neutral editing (AndreJustAndre evidence ↗), inconsistent standards of behavioral expectations (Crossroads evidence ↗), and incivility (Crossroads evidence, Tryptofish evidence ↗)." I'm thinking of appealing, on the merits, on the basis that none of the evidence supports any of those three conclusions. I'm posting my draft here and asking editors to review and comment, starting with the "non-neutral editing" section (I'll do the other two later). Levivich (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"consistently non-neutral editing"

Quoting from AndreJustAndre evidence ↗:

{{tq2|1=See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism/Archive_27#c-Levivich-20240924003200-Andrevan-20240924001800 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism/Archive_28#c-Levivich-20241016062200-Andrevan-20241016023600 ↗. Levivich considers Alam ↗, a non-expert economist, and law school deans reliable sources on Zionism and history of democracy respectively, despite not being historians of Middle East, Zionism, Judaism, Arab World, the Arab-Israeli Conflict (or American history in the parallel conversation). Yet, he rejects the use of similarly but reverse-polarized activist academic author Dershowitz ↗ out of hand with the statement, "{{tq|Oh ''hell'' no}}."}}

This is a misrepresentation of both the sources and me. The reason Alam is potentially a WP:BESTSOURCE ↗ for Zionism ↗ and Dershowitz is not is because Alam meets the objective criteria ↗ and Dershowitz does not: Dershowitz has never written an overview of Zionism--he's written about Israel and about the conflict, but those are not the same thing as Zionism. Alam has written an overview of Zionism. I explained how Alam met the criteria in this comment ↗ where I also said I didn't care if he was included or excluded, as long as we consistently apply an objective criteria. Nobody actually proposed any works by Dershowitz, likely because he has no works about Zionism. (Also, economists can be subject-matter experts on Zionism because Zionism is, depending on who you ask, either colonization or colonialism, and those are topics studied by economists. Economists are not the same as US constitutional law scholars.) Alam addresses this directly in his book ("Why is an ecnomist writing a book on the geopolitics of Zionism?"), which I quoted and linked to in the aforementioned comment.

More broadly, nobody can possibly read the relevant discussion at Talk:Zionism/Archive 27#Best sources ↗ and conclude that it is an example of "non-neutral editing." It is the exact opposite. I am consistent in applying the same WP:BESTSOURCES approach in this topic area and every topic I edit. For examples, see Talk:Nakba#Core sources ↗ and Talk:Israel/Archive 94#Lead: 1947-1949 ↗.

In the second diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism/Archive_28#c-Levivich-20241016062200-Andrevan-20241016023600 ↗, I was asked "show me the historians that say America wasn't democratic or pluralistic at all until 1965" and I linked two RS written by legal scholars (not historians) that said exactly that. This is not non-neutral, this is the straightforward application of WP:V and WP:RS. I don't even understand why this diff is here.

{{tq2|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz&diff=prev&oldid=1262700254 ↗ anyone who cites Karsh must be a sock (Levivich)}}

I didn't say exactly that (I said "probably," not "must"), and my full statement provides context necessary to understand my meaning:
:{{tqq|There just aren't that many people in the world who would dedicate so much time to having Wikipedia question whether, e.g., Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, or whether they were really expelled, or talk about a "Jewish right of return", or as is happening now, questioning whether displacement of Arabs was an inherent part of Zionism. In AP2, dog whistles like these are very commonly known--everyone knows who they're talking to once someone talks about "reverse racism" or "replacement" or "woke agenda." But in PIA5, people just aren't as familiar with the basic facts, so they don't recognize when someone is talking crazy talk. But if you know the dogwhistles, you can easily spot the socks. In short, anyone expressing views to the right of Benny Morris is almost certainly one of these long-time Wikipedia sockmaster/puppet/whatever (e.g., if they want to cite Karsh, they're probably a sock).}}
Read Efraim Karsh#Reception ↗ to understand whether or not he has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. I stand by the statement, that far-right views are an indication of sockpuppetry in this topic area. (And I wrote an essay about the use of poor sources in POV-pushing: WP:BYTHEIRSOURCES ↗.)

But even if you don't agree with that opinion of mine, it doesn't mean I'm engaging in non-neutral editing by expressing that opinion, and it was expressed at WP:SPI, not at an article talk page or other content discussion. I did not disrupt anything by expressing that opinion. I don't believe I've ever removed Karsh from any article or reverted anyone who added Karsh or voted against including Karsh in any discussion or reported anyone to any noticeboard simply for citing Karsh.

{{tq2|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism/Archive_27#c-Levivich-20240930030100-Discussion ↗ Removed sources clearly about Zionism because they "focus on Israel."}}

Again, this is a misrepresentation. I did not remove any sources from any article; the link is to a talk page discussion where I suggested removing sources from the WP:BESTSOURCES list. And it was the correct thing to do, because as I said, sources that focus on Israel are not the WP:BESTSOURCES for Zionism, because Israel is not the same thing as Zionism (it's an overlap). I said: {{tqq|As this Wikipedia article is an overview of Zionism, I think it should be modeled based on sources that are also overviews of Zionism -- and not sources that focus on something else, like on Israel, Palestine, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.}} This is the correct application of WP:BESTSOURCES. This is not non-neutral editing, it's the opposite, it's following WP:NPOV.

{{tq2|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism/Archive_29#c-Levivich-20240930230500-Scope ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndreJustAndre&diff=prev&oldid=1261399492 ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/64#%22Cherrypicked%22 ↗}}

I have no idea why these diffs are here. They don't show any non-neutral editing and no explanation is given.

{{tq2|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1262481974 ↗}}

Yes, I reverted some changes, and posted on the talk page explaining why (Talk:Zionism/Archive 31#Back to Dec 4 version ↗). I stand by the revert and the explanation; nobody has explained what was wrong with it. It is not non-neutral editing, it is reverting non-neutral editing, and following WP:BRD ↗.

Discussion

Feedback welcome. I'm particularly interested in whether anyone can identify any NPOV violations in the diffs that I may have missed. Also, any suggestions for being less verbose? Is the tone dickish? Another question: should I try to prove the opposite, showing that I am consistently neutral by following the same "forward editing/WP:BESTSOURCES" approach every time, in and outside this topic area? I included a couple links as examples of that, but could include much more about the great lengths I go to in order to achieve NPOV (those of you who've edited with me know what I'm talking about). But then I worry that this is already too long without getting into proving the opposite. Thanks in advance for any advice! Levivich (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:(I wasn't hatching your user talk, I just saw the notification go by that multiple sections had archived.) I agree with you, I think you were the least of the problems there. But as I'm sure you're aware it's always tricky when you get into the area of "I'm appealing because it was an incorrect assessment". Which puts you between a rock and a hard place. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for responding, whether you're watching or not :-) Yeah I know an appeal on the merits (meaning: the decision was wrong) is an uphill battle. But if you can't appeal on the merits, then you have no appeal rights at all. Arbcom has to have the function of reviewing its past decisions for error. (And it also needs to explain how edits violate policy. Simply asserting it without explanation can't be enough.) It's a hill I want to climb, and maybe even die on. No editor should be between this rock and hard place. But because it's so difficult, I'm soliciting feedback to try and make it as strong (and yet succinct) as possible. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::that wasn't a typo; hatching as in 'sitting on it waiting for something to happen' :) Valereee (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Oh! That went right over my head 😂 Levivich (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::If just trying to be helpful here can be read as a Tban violation (I dunno. I have just the minimum concentration span when required to read policies, and usually ask experts to clarify stuff like that for me), then revert this. Contesting a ban almost always requires a kind of formal apology or recognition one was at fault, and failure to do so translates as evidence for turning down the appeal. There is another option. Ask if there are any non-involved editors '''from both (perceived) sides''' of this field who would be prepared to consider putting their heads together to ask arbcom to allow you to re-edit in this area, as a net good for the project. I say this because, while flabbergasted by the grounds given for my own Tban at ARBPIA1, I duly left the area, and indeed desisted generally from any continued engagement with the project. In principle, from the outset, I made it clear that I refuse to challenge sanctions. Out of the blue, without notification, two editors from opposing sides asked arbcom to allow my return, and the latter body concurred. That way, no one was required to cringe or step back, or agonize. I'm sure many editors in good standing who might not agree with the apparent POV speciously attributed to you (in my view) do recognize nonetheless that you have exceptional talents that would be a net gain to this (sorry) place. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks but I care more about correcting the finding of fact than about being able to edit in the topic area. I'm more worried about receiving a Congressional subpoena or being picked up by ICE (actual concerns these days, if you can believe it) than I am about which articles I can edit on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::If I'm welcome here: As an editor who does not {{tq|agree with the apparent POV speciously attributed to you}}, I would be very comfortable following @Nishidani's suggestion, if you showed a few months (as in 3, not 12) of productive and civil mainspace edits. Considering the comment made by Tamzin combined with the recent warning, I think that appealing the sanction in the manner you are planning to do now is needlessly risky. I know you stated below that you are not interested in doing that at this time, but for what it's worth, this is a standing offer.
::::::Unrelated to that, I would be very supportive of you asking for the public ban to be changed to incivility only, as long as any request to remove the tban in the near or far future (at least informally) considers that alleged pattern of editing. I would suggest you do so primarily based on editor safety, rather than the merits, but that's your decision to make. FortunateSons (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Since you ping me, I'd just note that 'editor safety', while now ensconced with haemarroidal irritability in wikipedian administrative jargon, is ill-defined and as often as not an utterly subjective notion, and certainly seems to bear no functional relevance to the task required of contributors, i.e. to compose articles that summarize the best available opinions and scholarship on any topic. To insist that the essential recruitment and retention of editors is founded on a keen attention to their 'comfort' and 'safety', and privilege those values over what actually produces content, those individuals who actually pay attention to the quaiity of articles by doing the hard grind of RS mastery, risks turning this place into a whingeing nursery for anyone who wants, above all, to feel at home in a virtual 'community'. The most cogent expression of that danger can be found in John Stuart Mill ↗'s On Liberty ↗.
:::::::<blockquote>Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers,there is also in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation: and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strcngthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this encroaclnnont is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable. The '''disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others,''' is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power; and as the power is not declining, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can bo raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.John Stuart Mill ↗, On Liberty ↗ John W. Parker & Son ↗, London 1859 pp.29-30</blockquote>
:::::::Having said and noted that, I go away assured that this kind of analysis, from the best of thinkers about how societies either grow or decline will have zero impact in here because wikipedia has developed its own closed and somewhat closeted reflections through an arbitrary compromise of congestive opinions and the lobbying cries of those who feel afflicted and want a comfy home, and thinks blindly it knows better in riding 'herd' by the stockwhip of corralling conformity, all in the name of enlightenment. So one must sigh recalling a different book about how 'the deglutition of irony' is 'the most balsamic for wounds in the whole moral pharmacopoeia.'(George Meredith ↗, The Egoist ↗ (1879) Penguin Books ↗ 1968 p.565.)Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I largely agree with you, particularly when it comes to the fact that the line between comfort and safety is often intentionally or unintentionally blurred, often by those who focus on Wikipedia as a community instead of a collaborative project. Nevertheless, the continued existence of the project relies on our ability to ensure the existence of a collaborative and non-caustic environment, which, in my mind, is an excellent reason to reject the sort of "Being right is everything" approach followed by some of our grumpier regulars.
::::::::In this case, however, the following concern was expressed below:
::::::::{{tq|Normally I wouldn't be so worried about Congress investigating Wikipedia, but these are not normal times. Rümeysa Öztürk was detained merely for writing an op-ed critical of Israel in a school newspaper. Even US citizens are not safe. There's a non-zero chance of ICE showing up at my door. I figure the chances are low, but it used be zero. So I don't care if they keep me TBANed for incivility, as long as it's not for non-neutrality, because that has all these alarming real world consequences. Before I fight my own government about this in the real world, a fight that could start any day now, I'm going to try and follow on-wiki processes to have the incorrect finding of fact overturned. At least then I can tell my government that I'm not spreading lies about Israel on Wikipedia. The really important thing isn't that I get to edit this topic area or that topic area, it's that this website doesn't officially brand me as having spread lies about Israel on Wikipedia.}}
::::::::I don't think that any actual harm is particularly likely, but if a cosmetic change can bring a relatively significant reduction of a serious risk, I think ArbCom should take it, even if the "only" benefit would be reducing the concern for him. FortunateSons (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I can't speak to that of course. But anyone can draw their own conclusions about the vast glaring pettiness of rules governing the minutiae of wiki-politically correct discourse on feeling 'comfortable' as one edits intrinsically discomforting articles as opposed to the reality of feeling safe in the world out there where, say, 80% of the population feels unsafe ↗. That safety is a real concern. The safety we talk about in wiki is a wanker's paradise for whingeing, has rarely any relationship to any existential reality, and constitutes a serious obstacle to serious hard work (because one is obliged to mentally keep peeping over one's shoulder rather than concentrating on the text). Here it's a matter of ''de minimis curat lex more inexōrābilī''. That is sheer javertism ↗. This sort of reflection tells me I either should take the dog for a walk or go to the toilet.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Privately, for my own intellectual and moral interests, I am examining forms of aggression in the early Platonic dialogues. Now aggression is omnipresent in human discourse. Even in the conduct of an abstract, otherwise amiable debate, one can tease out various types of aggro simmering between exchanges. To waylay an innocent bystander in an Attic street and seduce him in the most playful manner to justify his opinions, and thereby expose how his perceptions of himself, and his ideas, are illogical to the point of absurdity, can be caricatured as antagonistically uncivil. Nowadays one would calls this passive aggression, and though hardly truculent, it eventually gets to Callicles ↗. Had wiki existed then, and had Gorgias ↗ become an article, Callicles, exasperated by Socrates's arguments, would have perhaps added a complaint of feeling unsafe or demeaned to the Athenian wiki board, in parallel to the suit made by Meletus and co against Socrates, which eventually earned him a death sentence, as certainly the Attic wikibored would have banished him into silence.

::::::::::The unveering pursuit of a truth-value, as determined by objective criteria (propositional logic or the given factual realities), will attract a certain kind of mind that will tend to ignore or dismiss all of the circumstantial elements at play in a debate, by insisting on the priority to be accorded evidence over one's interlocutor's sensibility. And this is targeted by our rules: we don't want that kind of person here because potentially others, without that drive, feel 'unsafe'. But, in that regard, are the ends of encyclopedic knowledge improved by banishment of any type whose language can be combed over for its lack of niceness, and, as a corollary, is there a 'net benefit to the project' by retaining only editors who exude, or act carefully to give an impression of exuding, a nice manner in talking back, esp. in the endemic WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT ↗ mode of passive aggression? If the latter how much liberty is allowed for them to sweetly persist in Max Black ↗'s humbug ↗ or Harry Frankfurt ↗'s bullshit ↗. Talking of 'net' benefits, an idiom that makes me guffaw when used in these agony dramas over trivia, a net ↗ may capture the erratic butterfly, but nature is impoverished thereby, and there is no net benefit other than the egoism of pinning mortified beauty on one's wall.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::That has given me a lot to think and read about, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, both of you (yes, you're welcome here). RL has kept me busy lately but I'll write more later. (Love ''On Liberty ↗''!) Levivich (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
:I would consider shortening the section on SPI and Karsh considerably and -- rather than citing an en.wp page which cites fora (in addition to scholarly sources) -- consider citing the sources directly:
::{{gray|André criticizes my statement at SPI that anyone wanting to cite Karsh is "probably a sock". I based this statement on Karsh's reputation as an unreliable source:}}
:::"Karsh resembles nothing so much as those Holocaust-denying historians who ignore all evidence and common sense in order to press an ideological point." Benny Morris, "Refabricating 1948 ↗"
:::"[H]owever likely readers are to be impressed by the intensity of Karsh's pristine faith in Zionism, they are sure to be stunned by the malevolence of his writing and confused by the erratic, sloppy nature of his analysis. Errors, inconsistencies and over-interpretation there may be in some of the new Israeli histories, but nothing in them can match the howlers, contradictions and distortions contained in this volume." Ian Lustick, "Israeli History: Who is Fabricating What? ↗"
:::maybe add a similar quote from el-Sayed el-Aswad, "Rethinking the Middle East ↗"
::{{gray|I have never removed Karsh sourcing from mainspace or engaged in debate about using him as a source; my comment was related only to sock-hunting at SPI so it is hard to see what it disrupts.}}
:HIH. I'll look at this some more, but tracking down the Wiley/T&F sources already took a while. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ↗ · 🍥 ↗ 18:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you, super helpful! Levivich (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: {{xt|I care more about correcting the finding of fact than about being able to edit in the topic area}}. With that as the goal, you may no longer be quite as much between the rock and the hard place? It's still tricky. You're asking people -- people I assume to be well-intentioned -- to reconsider and maybe change their stance. That's not easy for anyone, and when you're in a position of authority that people question often, a seige mentality can creep in even for the most well-intentioned people. But if you aren't actually asking that the tban be lifted ''because'' of it, maybe? The problem of course is that A leads to B. If the finding of fact is questioned, then the resulting tban is. I mean, you could argue, "I don't want to work in the topic area, I just don't want to have to worry about inadvertently approaching it too closely." Which for me is always the trap with a tban. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, exactly, I was planning to ask them to reconsider the FoF even if they don't change the remedy. (Usually it's the opposite: reconsider the remedy, not the FoF; hence the uphill climb.) I can disprove "non-neutral" and "inconsistent," but I can't really disprove "uncivil" because that's so subjective; if they view saying editors should read sources before talking about sources as uncivil, there is no way to objectively disprove that viewpoint. If they end up deciding to keep the TBAN anyway, fine, as long as the FoF doesn't falsely accuse me of NPOV violations.

:Anyway, I plan on only asking them to lift the TBAN for one article, because if I were to edit in the topic area, I would only be interested in editing one article (the main I-P conflict one), and I figure the best way to prove that I'm not the problem, and to show everyone else who and what ''is'' the problem, is for me to apply the "forwards editing" approach to the parent article while others watch in real time and see who shows up and what they (and I) say and do. Levivich (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Levivich,
:Your best bet for getting the TBAN overturned{{emdash}}regardless of what you, me or others think about the merits of placing of the TBAN in the first place{{emdash}}is to put in some significant content work in topics outside of the TBAN.
:If I was in your position I'd be trying to bring articles in other CTOP areas, which you may be interested in, to WP:GA ↗. Then when you go to appeal you'd be able to say 'hey look at these things I did here, here and here, in areas which are thought to be contentious topics and see how I improved the encyclopaedia in spite of the areas being contentious'. ''TarnishedPath''talk 10:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::I know that :-) I decided after PIA5 not to follow that well-worn path. I had already quit editing once, after WP:HJP ↗. I resumed after the Gaza war started, figuring it was worth returning to help correct the vast amounts of misinformation on this website in the PIA topic area. I did my best "forwards editing" work ever, expanding Nakba ↗, which was the most difficult topic I've ever edited when it comes to meeting NPOV. But I did a good job with it. My reward was to be labeled "consistently non-neutral" based on the set of diffs above (which only show consistently neutral editing).
::So after PIA5, I decided I'm not going to edit anything in mainspace so long as literally any edit could be called "non-neutral" and I could be site banned for it. And that's exactly what's happened to Iskander, who had chosen the "edit productively elsewhere" approach. I'm glad I've been on "mainspace strike" and will continue to be on strike until that "non-neutral" label is overturned.
::I couldn't give a damn about what areas I can or can't edit on Wikipedia, or whether I can edit Wikipedia at all. I have no burning desire to shape the world's understanding of the I-P conflict, and besides, LLM has overtaken Wikipedia now so editing isn't as impactful as it once was.
::The real issue is this: within an hour of the vote to sanction me reaching a majority--before the case was even closed!--the President of the ADL issued a press release ↗ congratulating Arbcom on banning me and the others. A couple months later, two dozen Congressmen sent a letter to the WMF referring to the ADL and saying that arbcom's ban of me and the others was "a welcome first step ↗." The US House opened an investigation and requested the WMF provide my IP address ↗ and other identifying information, as well as information about the Arbcom case. Then Tablet (magazine) ↗ published an article about PIA5 identifying me as the editor who first "seeded" anti-Israel information on Wikipedia and as a leader of a group of POV pushers (I won't link to it because it outs some other editors). Then Senator Ted Cruz ↗ sent a request for info ↗ to the WMF. So far the WMF hasn't released my IP and no Congressional subpoena has issued (AFAIK). I figure if the Democrats win in November this will be dropped, but until then it's tick-tock, tick-tock as I wait to see if a subpoena will issue--that's all Congress needs to identify me. (I can't believe I just wrote that sentence. What the hell has my life turned into? Thanks, Wikipedia!)
::Normally I wouldn't be so worried about Congress investigating Wikipedia, but these are not normal times. Rümeysa Öztürk ↗ was detained merely for writing an op-ed critical of Israel ''in a school newspaper''. Even US citizens are not safe ↗. There's a non-zero chance of ICE showing up at my door. I figure the chances are low, but it used be zero.
::So I don't care if they keep me TBANed for incivility, as long as it's not for non-neutrality, because that has all these alarming real world consequences. Before I fight my own government about this in the real world, a fight that could start any day now, I'm going to try and follow on-wiki processes to have the incorrect finding of fact overturned. At least then I can tell my government that I'm not spreading lies about Israel on Wikipedia. The really important thing isn't that I get to edit this topic area or that topic area, it's that this website doesn't officially brand me as having spread lies about Israel on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::As another "Gang of 40" editor who has been accused by the media of stepping into your place to push through a moratorium, I understand where you are comming from. ''TarnishedPath''talk 23:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::::...and sorry TP if I came across there as lecturing you about things you already know damn well. I think the point you raised is one that a lot of other people might be thinking (thank you for raising it), so I wrote that explanation for the world at large rather than for you specifically. Also I'm sorry that you got linked with me in this way in the media, I know that wouldn't be your preference :-) Levivich (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'd rather not have a target on my back, but it's nothing you could help. ''TarnishedPath''talk 00:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::Ironically, I started list of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia ↗. In the unlikely chance I ever end up on it, all I ask is that you guys please have mercy when selecting the photo. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Given that Iskandar323 was recently promoted to leader of the rebranded 'G40' group by that PW/npovmedia bloke, and they were quickly let go by ArbCom, maybe there is an equal opportunity employment law angle that could be argued e.g. the topic ban unfairly impacts your employment opportunities should you wish to apply for the G40 leader position. You could make some vague hand-waving not-quite-over-the-line legal threats citing federal law. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::After The Tablet article which named me, and outed others, I briefly toyed with renaming my account to "Gang of 40 Commissar", but then decided this would attract more of the sort of attention that I don't want and that trying to be funny wasn't worth it. ''TarnishedPath''talk 05:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I should point out for the benefit of page stalkers that PW of course refers to the magazine 'Popular Welding' (former title 'Unpopular Welding'). Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Good God, Levivich. I'm so sorry. Valereee (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:I cannot arrive at your interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCES ↗ by reading the policy. There is nothing in WP:BESTSOURCES that would imply that a reliable source about Israel that doesn't mention the word "Zionism" is unusable in the context of Zionism. This seems like a case of WP:UPPERCASE ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::I appreciate your questioning that, @SuperPianoMan9167, but WP:BESTSOURCES ↗ isn't about "usable", and "doesn't mention the word" isn't the standard. (Anyway, there are probably no sources about the state of Israel that do not mention the word "Zionism" (and vice versa) because the two are so closely linked.)
::A WP:BESTSOURCES discussion, like the one at Talk:Zionism/Archive 27#Best sources ↗, isn't about finding sources that are ''usable'', it's about finding the ''best'' sources. To quote the second sentence of WP:BESTSOURCES, emphasis mine: {{Tqq|When writing about a topic, '''basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources''' helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements.}} So not every source that mentions the word "Zionism" is {{tqq|the best respected and most authoritative}}.
::For ''any'' article, the WP:BESTSOURCES for that article are sources that are entirely devoted to the topic of the article. The best sources for Zionism ↗ are sources ''about Zionism'', not about Israel ↗ (which is closely linked but not the same thing), not about the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗ or Israeli-Palestinian conflict ↗, not about Palestinians ↗, not about Judaism ↗, etc. Similarly, the WP:BESTSOURCES about Israel are sources entirely about Israel, not sources about Zionism, or the conflict, or Judaism, etc.
::This topic area has WP:BESTSOURCES for all of its subtopics, because it has been written about so much. If you look at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗, you can see that there are many, many sources listed in the section about the Arab-Israeli conflict ↗, ''different'' sources in the section about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict ↗, ''different'' sources in the section about Israel ↗, and ''different'' sources in the section about Zionism ↗.
::At the discussion at Talk:Zionism/Archive 27#Best sources ↗, the objective criteria I proposed was {{tqq|(1) overviews of Zionism (2) published in the last 10 years (3) by subject-matter experts (4) by academic presses.}} Now if you look at those bibliographies, you can see that there are many, many sources written by experts published by academic presses in the last 10 years, about each of those topics: The Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Israel, and Zionism. But only the sources about Zionism (technically, only a subset of those sources) are {{tqq|overviews of Zionism}}. For Zionism, {{tqq|the best respected and most authoritative}} sources are going to be entirely about Zionism, not books about Israel or about the conflict, even though those sources will also discuss Zionism. That doesn't mean those sources can't be used (in fact, I've used them myself in some of my edits at Zionism ↗), but it means they're not {{tqq|the best respected and most authoritative}}, aka the WP:BESTSOURCES. There are many, many sources, listed in that bibliography, that meet this criteria, meaning many sources entirely about Zionism. Over a dozen were identified in that talk page discussion. The point of the discussion wasn't to find sources that are "usable," it was to identify {{tqq|the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources}} in order to {{tqq|prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements}}, exactly as WP:BESTSOURCES instructs.
::Does this explanation persuade you at all? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes. Also, you have successfully knocked down my strawman ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in support as you're one of wikipedia's users who consistently puts very deep thought into both sources and policies.'''VR''' (Please ping ↗ on reply) 20:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks, VR! Levivich (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

# find ''quality'' sources ↗

# ''read'' them ↗

# ''try'' to be right ↗

Not bad principles for editing in my opinion, if i might state them that way. Too bad they done ya in. fiveby(zero) 18:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

:FWIW, Levivich, "Being right is relevant" would probably be a better principle than "Being right is everything". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You are in the news, and not in a good way

Wikipedia’s War Against Biblical Archaeology - Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology ↗. See also Philadelphia Church of God ↗ Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs ↗) 04:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

:I don't get why everyone makes such a big deal that I like hummus. Levivich (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::If you want read something more positive, but doesn't mention you, see https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/comedy/article/depths-of-wikipedia-live-21338564.php ↗. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Motion enacted in lieu of case

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a motion ↗ in lieu of a full case for a case request you were a proposed party to. The motion reads:

{{ivmbox|The motion ↗ entitled {{tq|Iskandar323 further POV pushing}} is rescinded.}}

Discussion of the motion may be held at '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Iskandar323}}'''. For the Arbitration Committee, DatGuyTalkContribs ↗ 10:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}}
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Your presence is required

Hi {{ping|Levivich}} Your not bailing out are you? I sincerely hope not. Wikipedia needs your particular skill set. '''scope_creepTalk''' 18:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks, @Scope! RL's still keeping me busy, way too busy to write anything, but I've been checking in from time to time to read the latest happenings. Good to see the encyclopedia is still chugging along. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::What does RL mean? ~2026-24241-86 ↗ (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::"real life" Buffs (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Kitten

thumb|right ↗
Hope you've been doing alright the past few months. Here's a photograph of me and my kitten to lift your spirits if nessecary. I adopted him about two weeks ago and he's added so much joy to my life. Something else I like about this photo is that it shows my scar quite clearly. Now that people take photos of me at events, I find the most noticeable part of them is the absence of my scar. I've seen that scar in the mirror everyday for the past 15 years, but I guess photographs from a distance rarely feature it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hey @Clover! I've been doing great these last few months, thanks, hope you have, too! What a cute kitty! (You named him "Levivich," of course, I presume? lol) I have a scar like that, too, on my eyebrow: I see it every day but it never shows in pictures. And what's the point of having a bad ass scar if no one ever sees it, amirite? Levivich (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::Mine shows up as long as you're in front of me so people do notice it and comment on it occasionally (this is the main reason I read Harry Potter when I was 14). You can see the scar in a handful of the close-ups people have taken of me like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hannah_Clover,_Wikimedian_of_the_Year_2024.jpg ↗ and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedian_of_the_Year_2024_and_Wikimedian_of_the_Year_2023_winners_at_Wikimania_2024.jpg ↗. Photographs of me from a stage, though? Almost never. The kitten's name is Gatsby ↗. The shelter named him and I've never been the type to rename pets. It's always just felt wrong to me. He's such a cute little guy. I bought him a leash and harness the other day to take him on a walk (I suppose I'll have to write the article on cat walking ↗) and he smelled the dandelions. It was adorable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My credibility

Re: credibility ↗. I'm not here to convince you that I am sincere with my words and accept the fact that regardless of what I say, I am unable to 'prove' any credibility in this matter. That's ok. Please however bare in mind that I don't have a history of making assurances and then letting the community down, so comparing my statement to WMF assurances does not feel like a fair comparison. Instead I'm committed to not being part of any consensus building processes during a strike, as documented in that discussion. That could suggest I'm not one to simply conform to ideas just because everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe that explains why I find it insulting being throw into the same boat as others who have suggested a variety of different strategies, none of which I have expressed support for. These are simply my opinions and I respect the fact that you have different ones from me. Regards, CNCin solidarity ↗ (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hey, CNC. I apologize, I didn't intend for my comment saying that I didn't find your statement "credible" to come across as questioning your ''credibility'' overall. I do not in any way question your credibility or sincerity. I believe that you believe the things you say, even if I don't agree. And I, too, respect that disagreement. Levivich (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for understanding. CNCin solidarity ↗ (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

left|150px ↗
For being one of the few voices of sanity in WWUgate.

'''Kinopiko''' in solidarity with Esperanza 18:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 

:Thanks, Kinopiko! :-) Levivich (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Link again

Given one of your more recent comments about being genuinely curious, I'll post this again: https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/severance-pay ↗. I already did but I can see why it'd be easy to miss among the wall of text ocean that discussion is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:My favourite part of the ESA that'll probably shock Americans is: https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/pregnancy-and-parental-leave ↗. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you! I didn't know Employment Standards Act (Ontario) ↗ had minimum severance provisions. Do you know if that is common in other Canadian provinces or just Ontario? We don't have that in the U.S. under federal law; some states might, idk. We do have a federal Family and Medical Leave Act ↗ though (and some states have similar laws with better ptirxtions), but the federal maternity leave is 12 weeks not 17. Way to go, Ontario! (If things really go bad in the U.S. next year, I may end up becoming one of your new countrymen. Toronto is looking pretty good. You might get a lot of us.) Levivich (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I honestly don't know, but learning the ESA was part of my high school civics class. My point is people deserve better. Like, if the WMF has employed anyone in Ontario for more than five years, they get that severance leave. Why should ethics be limited to the bare minimum for where someone lives? We can decide to not be evil. Happy workers just make better business sense. I have my own work horror story from last year but I'm trying not to make this about me. But it's another reason I care deeply for things just being better for people. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Also, that's just the pregnancy leave. Scroll down for the parental leave provisions. They stack. And even if the leave is unpaid by your employer, you get money from the government during this time: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-maternity-parental.html ↗ Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::There's an answer to your question, at least in the U.S., and it's fiduciary duties ↗, which are not optional. Directors and Officers, like the Board of Trustees and CEO, are legally required not to breach their fiduciary duties, like duty of care and duty of loyalty. Those duties are owed ''to the company'', in this case to WMF, Inc. Not to Wikipedia (the idea, the movement, or www.wikipedia.org), not to the WMF's employees, not to the volunteers, not to the WMF's mission (which can change), not to the idea of a free encyclopedia, not to doing good instead of evil, but to WMF, Inc., and only to WMF, Inc. They're legally required to put the interests of WMF, Inc. above all of those things I just listed. And that means only paying money to employees if it's good for WMF, Inc.
::::The argument, of course, is that it's good for WMF, Inc. to have attractive employment practices, including compensation, in order to attract and motivate the best talent. But that's the angle, it can't be "put others' interests ahead of the company's interests," the argument has to be "this is in the company's interests" in order for an Officer or Director to be able to do it. Something maybe to keep in mind next time you're talking to one :-) Levivich (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::My understanding is that is only true if you don't convert to a membership organization and then it becomes duties to members. But yes, the easiest way for the WMF to solve all this is that these interests are indeed that of the organization's. Choosing to do nothing is way more damning and people have been fed up for too long at this point. As I was saying, it's not that hard to not be evil and trying to say that's just how it's required to be is not an acceptable answer. We're the only reason their whole model works in the first place. Betraying our core values makes the whole thing fall apart and if the foundation doesn't get that right now, I hope they do soon. They still have a chance to make things right if they actually listen to everyone. We've already heard it's not about money. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that's right, if it were a member organization, they'd have duties to members. And the Directors and Officers do have some duties to the employees, volunteers, and general public, as well.
::::::And I'm certainly not saying they're legally required to be evil. Really, I think the analogies of "good" and "evil" are unhelpful, even counterproductive. When it comes to real-world issues like how should a non-profit's severance policy be structured, it's overly simplistic to try and pigeonhole options into two categories, "good" and "evil." It's more complicated than that, and what's good to one person may be evil to another.
::::::And it's kind of easy to illustrate. So I have an employee who makes $150k/yr and I'm thinking about gifting that employee 9 mos severance in exchange for nothing because I'm laying them off and I want to do good. So that's someone in the top 20% by income in the U.S., working remotely, and I'm thinking of giving them another $112k as a layoff gift.
::::::Alternatively, I can use that same money to hire two homeless unemployed people and pay them $56k/yr each.
::::::So which choice is good and which choice is evil? Levivich (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I know, I just have every counterargument at the ready because I learned a lot from the board fiasco. 😛 I also don't trust that being treating publically like this ↗ lends well to what must happen behind closed doors when people are sworn to secrecy. If they don't want us to think the worst of them, give us the truth, and then at least we can only judge them on that alone. I also don't think this would be in exchange for nothing. As I was saying, it was a massive mistake on their end and these employees are quite literally irreplaceable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I'm way closer to the second person in your example, btw. I don't think I've ever made more than 32,000 USD annually in my life? And yet here I am providing critical solutions to crisis management while the executives are out on their weekend. I'm all for work life balance but the whole on call thing is why the normal salary for those roles is the way that it is. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The good choice would have been not to have the layoffs in the first place? Can't say I disagree there :-)
::::::::But I'm reminded of a personal experience as well. When I was younger, I had a job where I worked directly for the CEO of a small company, and for years I watched him make decisions that I thought were absolutely stupid or misguided. Later, when I was CEO of a small company for the first time, it completely changed my perspective. Over and over I'd be faced with these tough decisions and I remembered my old boss and thought "oh, that's why he did that!" I really didn't understand the role until I was in it. I've had to lay people off twice (ha, I should put that on my resume!) -- albeit never when I had $200 million in the bank, but still, I'm hesitant to judge the WMF's CEO or CTO over this decision, as a volunteer editor looking in from the outside. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, the best choice would've been not to have the layoffs at all (and there's a desperate disconnect for trying to shill this as a good thing if you look at Jimmy's talk page), but now that that money has been "spent", they'd actually get more use of it by being practical and learning from the experience. It'd be in the interests of everyone. And obviously there's more to it than a single experience, but it seems like there's been several questionable decisions for a very long time. And since we can't even know how bad things are from the employees side, that lack of information is itself damning. For example, I know based on previous controversial WMF decisions that employees are not allowed to say anything when something like this happens, even if they wanted to. That's why we have only heard from one person since the start. Once things got big enough, I'm almost certain they shut that down internally. There's a predictable pattern and I think we as a community have got sick of seeing it repeat over and over again when it'd be better just to do the right thing. As for being in someone else's shoes, maybe, but I can't know for sure unless someone put me in that position. Seeing what the new NYC mayor has been doing has convinced me that a lot of what people claim is complicated and impossible to solve really isn't if you simply care and have the political will ↗ to do it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Speaking of political will, I've never understood why this community doesn't exercise political will on the Board of Trustees, the only group that has the power to make changes ''and'' is directly answerable to the community. Instead of making demands on the CTO, which is like two steps down in the hierarchy, the community should be making demands of the Trustees, who have the power to direct the CEO to do things like spend money, set priorities, etc. Why doesn't the community demand that the Trustees vote for a resolution instructing the CEO to do X, Y, and Z?
::::::::::And beyond the Trustees are Trustee candidates. Strikes and petitions are all well and good, but where are the hundreds of signatures pledging not to vote for any candidate who won't commit to voting for a resolution instructing the CEO to do X, Y, and Z?
::::::::::The community can decide on the X, Y, and Z (it can be "make sure X is done by Y date"), and it can elect candidates who vote for resolutions that direct the CEO to make those things happen. I think holding Trustees to voter demands would be a lot more effective than trying to convince the person who was hired by the person who was hired by the Trustees. The CTO will do what the CEO wants, not what editors want, and the CEO will do what the Trustees want. It's only the Trustees who answer directly to editors, yet we demand so little of them and so much of their underlings. Levivich (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think it's because the average person doesn't nessecarily know about the importance of the board of trustees. Also, the board is pretty good at preventing change from happening (like removing candidates from a ballot last minute that might actually advocate for change). I think people are being really clear and direct to Selena because she's basically the top person for the product side and also because she should be communicating these things to someone who can actually do something about it. I have been trying to get the board's attention by posting on Jimmy's talk page, as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Serious accusation by User:Tamzin against User:Levivich ↗. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocking during cban discussion

I've like most of your comments in this issue, but just a fine point I wanted to make about your comment: {{tq|Leaving my 2c here that an admin unilaterally blocking an editor during a cban discussion -- absent some true emergency reason like death threats -- is unreasonable.}} There actually ''are'' decent reasons for a block during a cban discussion, as long as the blocking admin makes it clear that the block is to stop ongoing disruption and is not intended to be a judgement with regard to the cban discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I agree with you, and I could have been clearer that it's "to stop ongoing disruption" (of whatever nature, not necessarily a wp:emergency ↗ situation), and it's a temporary measure, as you said, not intended to be a judgment on the underlying cban discussion (which, of course, was not what happened with the block in this case). Levivich (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Spreading Peace

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">40px|left ↗

Issac I Navarro (talk) wishes you peace! 

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{tls|WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.</div> {{thank you}} for your edits on the RfC at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art) ↗. I know that the subject there can be a lot. Thus, I wanted to share my appreciation for engagement in improving Wikipedia. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)