Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:19, 15 August 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

Topic ban notification

Pursuant to Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, you are topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Appeal of this sanction may be made to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would question the wording of this. The issue is about places in the areas captured by Israel in the 6 Day War. If one wanted to play safe, then extending to any areas ever controlled by Israel would make sense. Nableezy writing about non-Sinai Egyptian places, a subject on which he knows more than most Wikipedians oughtn't to be a problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'Neighbouring countries' effectively means Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. I'm interested in this personally since the reading of Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions in this light suggests that previously banned editors cannot write about any town, city or other locality in those four contiguous countries, for example it would follow that I cannot write about Phoenician remains in Lebanon, Haim Farhi's commercial activities in Syria, Queen Noor, or the pyramids. After my I/P ban Nableezy, who like me never edited in the area of towns, cities, settlements and other locations and places in Israel, (if so, then the ban extends to pages the editor rarely if ever edited, rather unique) asked me to help him on Al-Azhar Mosque, and we did so quite successfully. Apparently if Stifle's reading of that arbitration verdict is correct, in doing this I was in default of that sanction even there. Curious. Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Peter on this. Locations in Israel (i.e. on the Israeli side of the Green Line) should be excluded for both Nableezy and Shuki. Disputes don't occur in articles about locations in Israel so there's no reason to include them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I was wondering when someone would pick that up, Stifle has annexed the disputed areas to Israel or maybe given them away to Jordan, Egypt and Syria? :-) Nishidani, in fact someone dear let me know about your topic ban violation, but I suggested 'we' let it slide. I don't believe in the battlefield mentality. --Shuki (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

someone dear? As to a 'battlefield mentality', I have never understood what one earth editors and admins mean by that. It strikes me as just a rhetorical fiction mainly, thrown into the atmosphere to dog or fog debate. If, as in my case, 8 reverts over 50 days is proof of a battlefield mentality, then goodness knows how few editors would ever squeak through sanctions, were they applied coherently. I have no intention to persist, nor desist. I simply made a point which I think it would be unfair to judge to be cocking a snook at my topic ban, and which I gather you share. The point concerns clarity about the Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, as applied here, and which, in watching from the sidelines, I gather might have an impact on myself as someone sanctioned under them. That is a legitimate request, or query, not a violation of a topic ban. I like clarity, which is not a healthy thing to desire round here:) Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It means that an editor brings sourced material that certain other editors dont like and insists that the highest quality sources be included in supposed "encyclopedia" articles. You know, what you were banned for. nableezy - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So anyone want to come up with a form of words to take for clarification? The main dispute has been about areas outside the green line. I think if someone started writing about depopulated Arab villages in Israel or Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon during their ban, that would be regarded as taking the piss. But Tel Aviv or Cairo ought to be fine. Personally I would think this ban were adequately implroved if Shuki alone were allowed to write about non-controversial palces in Israel and Nableezy alone about non-controversial places in Egypt.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume that Stifle said "neighbouring countries" to keep them out of the Northern Cyprus dispute that everyone is always suggesting others get involved in. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I've been trying to motivate Nableezy to write about Egyptian issues but to no avail. I would really like to see evidence of this Egyptian knowledge that you claim he has. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck claimed I have "Egyptian knowledge"? And why do you care if I write about Egypt? What does that have to do with you? nableezy - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I said that because I was under the impression that Nableezy is Egyptian, though perhaps he is Egyptian American. I notice that a few edits to places like Abdel Halim Hafez appear on his edit list so he certainly has some interest in Egyptian matters but yes it's dangerous to get too wound up in dispute-related matters. Of course, he's as free as he wants to be to comment on this.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Im a African, never been an African-American. nableezy - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The underlying premises, Peter, are twofold (a) that an editor needs to keep working on the encyclopedia when topic-banned, as if a sanction meant he had a punishment to work off, and that (b) someone should contribute to articles reflecting his cultural or ethnic background. With regard to (a) this is a volunteer project, and no one is obliged to do what others suggest they might do. One doesn't have to prove anything here. As to (b)generally, it would be wise for editors in general to abstain from working on areas connected to their own specific cultural background. One can rarely, if ever, write in NPOV vein about oneself, and this, mutatis mutande, to make a pathetic Italo-Latin pun, has its corollary in writing about one's immediate social world. It takes considerable training, at several levels, to acquire the necessary detachment, i.e., to depoliticize one's instincts. Best Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is only natural for someone to write about their own culture, and just because we have feelings and POV, does not mean we cannot be NPOV in articlespace. It is a challenge and I think many good editors sooner or later manage to do this. Certainly I want Jewish editors editing Jewish articles and Muslim editors editing Muslim articles, but of course, we are all volunteers here, and no one can force anyone to edit something s/he does not want to. Frankly, it helps build a complete image of the editor and makes it harder to sockpuppet. There is an issue here of anonymity that allows many people to be more aggressive than responsible, but that is one of the drawbacks. If an editor uses one account consistantly, and cares to build credibility, build value for that editor's name, this increases the quality of the project. --Shuki (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's natural, but parlous, and the great corrective is to draw on the best scholarship from and on one's own culture, because cutting-edge scholarship at its best is where any culture shows its virtues as a civilisation capable of addressing the pros and the cons of its historical world, devoid or fear or politics. This is generally however not the case. One could overcome the defect by insisting that articles in conflicted areas draw on academic or high quality press imprints only, no other sources. This of course will never occur, but it seems apparent that wiki thrives on endless recruitment of newbies to replace any one who gets fed up, i.e., on the premise that the sheer quantitative replacement and turnover of editors will always exceed in utility the numbers, who may often have a record of qualitative imput, who are banned or give up for any number of reasons.

Oh, in areas beset by conflict, I think it would do wikipedia a world of wonders to oblige all contributors to qualify as editors by giving their own real names. The scourge of sockpuppetry is easy to overrule. Make 2000 edits or more to general articles the bar, before any editor can have the masochistic privilege of building articles that are conflicted, etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm alright, Jack, on both names and edit count. Not sure about some people who have announced there desire to be forever anonymous as they push their Stratfordian Israel-hating propaganda. ;-) The mechanism of reviewed edits could be used to control some of the puppets, though my attempts to get the JIDF article protected in this way have failed. Anyway, I could imagine one of the incarnations of "David Appletree" making 1999 reverts of his first edit in order to be able to protect his image. I do think that with a topic area such as the IP conflict, it would be good to maintain an archive of multiply banned/indef blocked editors CU and behavioural details. Of course after two years there's a fair chance that they will have upgraded thei computer, moved home, changed ISP etc As it is you and JayJG, for example, are keeping to your topic bans while Stellarkid etc keep coming back and lure other editors inter edit wars where they get restricted.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding anonymity and avoiding conflict of interest by not writing about oneself, it's an approach I fully support. I edit under my own name and I've scrupulously avoided making any edits to the asshattery article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

Hello Stifle. I dont believe that ARBPIA allows you to impose topic bans for topics outside of the ARBPIA "area of conflict". The ban you imposed bans me and Shuki from a number of articles that are outside of any possible interpretation of the area of conflict covered by ARBPIA, such as the article on Shibin el-Kom or articles on random cities in a number of countries. Could I trouble you to take a closer look at how broad this ban is and whether or not it is allowed under ARBPIA? Thanks. nableezy - 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The last entry of the discretionary sanctions remedy allows administrators to take "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project", which I believe is sufficient. If there are one or more articles that you feel particularly inclined to edit but are prevented from by the topic ban, please specify them and I will consider exempting them on a case-by-case basis. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You really think it is "reasonably necessary" to ban Shuki from edits to Tel Aviv or me from edits to Petra or Cairo? If so I have to question your understanding of the words "reasonable" and "necessary". But I dont care enough to go through any more hassle in dealing with this, so this fine by me. nableezy - 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit

I was pleased to see that you just blanked AgadaUrbanit's most recent comment on your page without replying. Because he or she should have got the message about being unwelcome here long ago, it looked more and more as though the aim was to provoke you. I suspect that, if it were to be brought up on any of the noticeboards, being provoked wouldn't be seen as a justification for telling the provoker where to go in less and less uncertain terms. Probably the provoker would be sanctioned too, but perhaps they might feel the price was worth it.     ←   ZScarpia   23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought saying "be gone" twice in one message would have been enough, but guess not. In fact, I saw the bar at the top of the screen and thought "fuck, again????". Cheers, nableezy - 23:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring repeated requests to stay off your talk page as well as deleting your comments for invalid reasons (unacceptably ambiguous non-personal personal attacks?) elsewhere certainly made it look as though you were being deliberately wound up. Might be an idea to point out to AgadaUrbanit that, if he or she wants to attract your attention, the {{talkback}} template can be used.     ←   ZScarpia   10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism article

Hello Nableezy. I personally do not have a horse in this race, or even an adequate knowledge of the reliability of the newly added sources, but the overall tone of the edit strikes me as being, as I said in the ES, a totally POV rant. From past edits I've seen, this seems like it would be an area of interest to you, but I don't know if you follow that article; and of course I just saw the topic ban above, which probably prevents you from making immediate corrections, but perhaps you know more people than I do with enough expertise in the topic to restore some NPOV tone to the section. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. It is terribly sourced. The one good thing about that material is that it got me to read this Israeli MFA brief which contains the line the Ministry of Education committed itself to completing its five-year plan for Bedouin in the South within three years (instead of five, as originally planned). nableezy - 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Golan Heights

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I don't know what Brewcrew's reinstatement of all the other crap was about.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be another reason for removing that post, but I dont really care about whatever that user says about me. If however you take exception to "many western editors here (maybe some are even defeatist Jews)" then you may have a case for removal. But my guess is youre a big boy, if a bit defeatist, and can handle it ;) nableezy - 02:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hi nableezy. I would agree with you, but there are others who disagree, including some academics. So we're trying to work out language that best describes the working relationship between the two men. Thanks for your help, though. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Apropos, and recalling your perplexity your perplexity that he would adopt a monicker that meant 'king' (Malik), perhaps he was thinking of Anas ibn Mālik, a noted sahabi of Mohammud's? In the Hebrew Tanakh, further, mlkm, can be vocalized as Milcom, (or 'Melkhom' in early Greek translations) which is close to Malcolm, and comes from the triliteral root mlk meaning not only to 'rule' (hence the 'king' you are uneasy with, though it could have been a nice counterpoise to Martin Luther King!) but also 'counsel'. Whatever, a man dumped with the white name 'Little' grew to a princely stature, and I don't think it would be unfair to allow him to assert a compensative sense of royal self-identification, in a world that not only called him Little, but had obliterated his African identity so thoroughly he could only reclaim it by enigmatic allusion to a cypher, X. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing my RfC formatting problem! I was having a tough time figuring it out :-) Noleander (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I only know because when I start an RFC the bot stops at the timestamp, which in my signature will cause the rest of the page to be screwed up (see here for an example). Cheers, nableezy - 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hebrew

Hi Nableezy! I have reverted the editor, since the previous version was correct. Thanks for the heads up. —Ynhockey 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks, as described in this AN3 report. You may appeal the topic ban as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)