| Revision as of 17:34, 26 December 2023 view sourceHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,935 edits →Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:11, 12 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,836 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Nableezy/Archive 58) (bot | ||
| (574 intermediate revisions by 81 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- {{Contentious topics/aware|a-i|blp|ap}} --> | <!-- {{Contentious topics/aware|a-i|blp|ap}} --> | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(10d) | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| | archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 50K | |||
| |counter = |
| counter = 58 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 50K | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == |
== advice for article creation == | ||
| hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks ] (]) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any material you'd recommend on Israeli sexual violence against Palestinians? I found some like , , , , etc. Anything else that you know of? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Ill see what I can find. ''']''' - 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: <pagestalker>]: How long back do you want to go? Eg from ], you have from 1949; for similar incidents during 1948; search Morris, 2004, "Birth of.." for "rape". | |||
| ::For "aftermath"; see eg | |||
| ::*{{cite book|last=Nazzal|first=Nafez|year=1978|title=The Palestinian Exodus from Galilee 1948|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=li1IAAAAMAAJ|publisher=The Institute for Palestine Studies|location=Beirut|isbn=9780887281280}} | |||
| ::Cheers, ] (]) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Huldra}} thanks! What do you mean by "aftermath"? Also I'm interested in both the 1949-1967 and post-1967 period. Finally, I'm not just looking for rapes (strictly defined) but any form of sexual violence. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Vice regent}} by "aftermath" I mean "life after rape"; Nazzal interviewed Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in the early 1970s, including about Palestinian women who survived rape. (AFAIK: most did't) I always though the importance of rape in 1948 beeing underestimated; even if the number wasn't large, the fear of it literally emptied villages. And it was a taboo subject; the Palestinians euphemistically said they left (their village) out of fear for the "honor of their girls" (there is an Arab expression for it; ''bint'' something?). (I haven't checked, but I wonder that wasn't a reason for leaving ], noted in book?) | |||
| ::::About sexual violence in general; ] had an article in ] a few years ago about how the Israelis castrated (in their public hospitals(!)) Arab Palestinian men who they accused of wrongdoing; I tried to find the article, but couldn't. (Any pagestalker to the rescue?), Interestingly, The Israeli rape-law was recently changed: if a Jewish man rapes a Jewish women, it is "only" rape. If a Palestinian man does the same; it is both rape ''and'' terrorism, cheers, ] (]) 23:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::? But its about the haganah.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 00:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::]; hmm; I don't think so; I seem to recall that the article was by ], cheers, ] (]) 22:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@], Write all the information in the ] article. ] (]) 12:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's tricky because to call something a war crime requires not just a historian, but an international legal expert to make that claim. A journalist can say "Israel reportedly sexually humiliated Palestinian prisoners", but you need an expert in international law to say if that was a war crime. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 16:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :, covered further by . ''']''' - 15:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed decision of ] posted == | |||
| == RFC reviews == | |||
| Howdy, Nableezy. Where would one go, to get the RFC reviewed at Trump's 2024 campaign? IMHO, it's not a neutrally worded. ] (]) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Nowhere for now IMO, if it proceeds and then is closed then WP:AN. Better would be getting people on the talk page to agree to reformulating it in to a neutrally worded RFC prompt. ''']''' - 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Puzzled== | |||
| {{hat|take it to the article talk}} | |||
| I was puzzled by this response to my remark that a paragraph in the article was too long and detailed. Are you confusing me with another editor who put the article in a bad condition in the past? I have never edited a passage in that article to say that there had been a mass surrender. Or as you put it, "pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯ Assuming the article "pushed a lie" in the past, what has that got to do with me? ] (]) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it was a statement on the general state of the article, not an assignment of blame. When things get added and they are emphatically pushing one specific POV it isnt a problem, when that is corrected with reliable sources that show that POV to have been effectively propaganda that was inserted as though it were objective fact, then it is overly detailed and too long. ''']''' - 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, but that is not what you said. You said, "Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" That was in response to my suggestion that the paragraph be written in summary style, not that anything specific be added or not added. ] (]) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it was in response to the suggestion that the inclusion of material that showed the previously included material to have been bogus is what has made things overly detailed and too long. ''']''' - 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is the totality of what you were responding to: "Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight." By "conveyed here" I meant the entire "surrender" issue, not one aspect or another aspect of that issue. The article is very long and detailed and excessively so in my view. Sometimes things get ungainly during editing and we try to boil it down. However, if you feel the article should go into that detail on that point, if you feel it is not excessive, then simply say so. I am not familiar with what the article said in the past on that subject. I just don't have that frame of reference. ] (]) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, like I said it wasn’t meant as casting blame on you, just a reflection on how the editing goes here. Burst of edits adding very POV material, later edits to fix that POV make things too bloated. But fair enough, you meant the overall topic and not just the addition on how the initial reports were bs. ''']''' - 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Coretheapple}} Please don't clog other editors' talk pages with long missives on article content concerns; take it to the article talk page where all editors can weigh in. ] (]) 10:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Filibustering == | |||
| As you can already tell, filibustering behavior is impeding editing on some articles, would you know what is the best way to deal with this issue? ] (]) 10:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You are constantly going to come across people who have gotten very good at getting in the way. They don’t have sources they don’t even read the sources you provide, but they know that just claiming such and such policy supports them is an effective way to slow things down. You just need to have faith in the wider community and bring the dispute to a noticeboard or an RFC. Honestly I think this topic is headed to arbcom again, between the filibustering and the email campaigns idk what else can really happen here. ''']''' - 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == 1RR violation == | |||
| You violated 1RR with ] and ]. Please self revert or I will report you. ] (]) 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Self reverted. {{rpa}} ''']''' - 17:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Knock that off. If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination email arbcom. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Already did but I don’t know how that was a personal attack. ''']''' - 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no {{t|remove unnecessarily personalized comment about an editor pointing out a mild 1rr violation and aspersion about a third party relating to off-wiki canvassing}}. I figured you'd get the drift. ] (]) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation == | |||
| <div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px"> | |||
| ] | |||
| :::::'''Hello {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}, we need experienced volunteers.''' | |||
| ::::* ] is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help. | |||
| ::::* Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but <u>it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines</u>; Misplaced Pages needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference. | |||
| ::::* Kindly read <u>]</u> before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. | |||
| ::::* If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the ]. You can apply for the user-right ''']'''. | |||
| ::::* If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's ]. | |||
| ::::* Cheers, and hope to see you around. </div> | |||
| Sent by ] using ] (]) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Coordination/Invite_list_3&oldid=1190429361 --> | |||
| == Result of arbitration == | |||
| Hi, do you know if I can start editing restricted pages once i reach 500 edits? Or should i aim for 600-700? Thank you! ] (]) 19:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You can start at 500, but I wouldnt treat getting to 500 as a goal more just a result of editing normally. The whole point of the restriction, beyond putting a tiny brake on the sockpuppetry, is to get people better acquainted with our content policies in less heated topics. So just edit normally and as you gain experience you'll find yourself past 500 edits without really trying to get there. ''']''' - 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok great, thank you! ] (]) 19:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| I'm sorry - and I'm sorry it was you who made the edit. It was inevitable, as many wrong things are, but you could have left it to somebody else. So many ugly things are happening, and some people are stoking and throwing it at the fan, like Sarsour, and some are just feeling helpless, 'cause ugliness is taking over all around, from all sides. And then better not add to it, stay out of it. I'll try - again - to follow my own advice. Take care, stay good. ] (]) 01:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :], the reason I defended you at AE is because I get why there is this anger. I understand why you were editing emotionally. And I dont think that some isolated outburst wipes away all of the good things youve done here. There have been several moments in the past 10 weeks or whatever its been that have made me edit emotionally. A good friend of mine has lost over 15 people in his family in that time, and I got to keep seeing one of his little cousins, the orphan child of what had been an orphaned father, all over social media. There was a video of a child that was still alive with half their face blown off, you could see him still moving, still in pain, and then you get the update that they are undergoing surgery with no anesthesia, and then that they, mercifully, died. And the fact that I was literally thankful that this child died fucked me up. And it showed in my edits, I was editing with my emotions, and my emotions were white hot. Some of our best editors have fallen victim to that over the years, Malik Shabazz reacted to a white man who had harassed him over years over multiple accounts calling him "sonny boy" and the resulting what was, just given our editor base, overwhelmingly white men ho-humming on ANI about a white man calling a black man boy in any context at all the way that I imagine I would react if that had happened to me. And he lost his admin bit as a result, and I dont think the anger ever really subsided from there, until he just left. The amount of esteem that people I highly regard hold for you is enough reason for me to not report you for the things youve said to and about me in the past. And now too. But you have to be able to realize when your emotions are what are driving your edits. And that somebody who is simply following our editorial policy shouldnt be expected to deal with an editor saying something like {{tq|Sleep well. If you can.}} ''']''' - 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I'm beyond sorry to hear about those people. How can you live on in times like this? I don't care now about blocks or arbitrations or any of those games, it feels so irrelevant. There's very little one can hang on to when the real world falls down the drain. Misplaced Pages is little more than FB mixed with crosswords. It can't move anything. And things need moving, as you see and feel more painfully than me. It shouldn't have been you to take the FGM thing out, and it shouldn't have been me to put it in, and even less to come back at you. I wasn't even fully aware who took it out when I replied. It's just one more of those games that - in real life - end up killing: we choose to see only this bit, ignore the other, that's what the rules are asking us to, that's what "people" are expecting us to do. A spade is never a spade, even when it hits the skull bone; it depends on the angle you look at it, context, etiquette. | |||
| Sorry. I hope better news will come your way. Good night. I'll go out to get some air. ] (]) 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Idk honestly, you do the best you can to help as much as you can, but sometimes you just feel helpless. And yeah, a lot of what happens here definitely feels irrelevant, but I do still believe in the fundamental tenets of this place, that we can create as close to objective recountings of the things that are happening in the world by following some simple rules. And one of those is, in this case, that our sources have to be used in the way that they are originally being used, or to give a totally hypothetical example you cant take a source about Ali's FGM that is unrelated to Sarsour's comment about her to write about Sarsour's comment. That the thing that keeps our own biases in check, and we all have them, me you all of us, are these rules that regulate what sources can be used and how they can be used.<p>I hope the same for you Arminden, I sincerely hope the people you know and care about stay safe, and I hope we can all soon go to sleep not being terrified of the news that is surely going to greet us in the morning. ''']''' - 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Unnecessary inflammation == | |||
| was mostly fine, but leave out the snide {{tq|Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then.}} Pulling things back to be a bit more dispassionate would be even better. ] (]) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the inflammation was from the condescending and patronizing tone in the comment I was responding to, but I’ll try to find a way of answering what I find to be hypocritical patronization with something less acerbic than mild sarcastic dismissal. ''']''' - 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, it's appreciated. It's much harder to police tone than it is actual snide comments, and it's even harder to ding someone for their tone when there's a clear snide comment right beside it. My hope is that if I make enough warnings for the most obvious temperature-raising stuff it'll die off enough where I can start focusing on the more subtle stuff. ] (]) 15:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nableezy, this is now a warning. . Leave out the accusations. You can discuss possible misinterpretation or misrepresentations without direct personal commentary. This needs to stop. If you leave out the first sentence you're talking about a reading of sources, not making direct accusations against another editor. If you believe there is a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation take it to AE where it belongs. | |||
| :::Additionally, you and {{u|Andrevan}} need to stop arguing. Your persistent arguing isn't convincing anyone else and it's disruptive to the rest of the discussions. Both of you need to stop responding to each other. You two obviously disagree and it's vanishingly unlikely that you're going to convince each other of anything and only creates more hostility. As that hostility increases the both of you get more worked up which leads to more personal commentary, even against other editors, which increases hostility and so on. Other editors get drawn in and both sides get hardened against the other, compromise becomes less likely, and everything gets shittier. ] (]) 01:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you’re making a mistake but I don’t think engaging further is likely to lead to anything positive, so noted. ''']''' - 01:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Then make your case at AE, or if you believe it's too complex take it to Arbcom. ] (]) 01:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, I dont think what he did rises to AE, making a claim a source doesnt support on a talk page isnt the sort of thing that should be reported to AE. But neither is saying that claim is false. If somebody says something false, and I think that false statement is being taken as though it were true by people responding in the RFC, I say the statement is false. He has even accepted that his statement as originally stated was overstated, but Im warned for saying it is made up? Is it because I say he made it up as opposed to it passively is made up? But this is what I meant in I dont think engaging is going to lead to anything productive, if anything its probably going to get me in hotter water. He modified his comment and I modified my critique. If you feel the original sequence merits a warning then fine. Hell if you feel the ongoing level of commentary merits that warning fine, fair enough too. But I dont honestly think this sequence does, but its not that big a deal anyway. ''']''' - 04:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == "discuss it on my talk page" == | |||
| Yeah, it is uncivil, as you've repeatedly accused me of tendentious editing and misrepresenting sources, which has never been true, so please withdraw that baseless aspersion and apologize or I'll open a new report. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You wrote that the accusation of rapes {{tq|has been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred.}} The source you later cite says {{tq|The evidence, primarily from the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli officials, suggests that dozens of Israeli women were raped or sexually abused or mutilated during the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. According to first responders, one was mutilated with a pair of scissors and another stabbed with a knife. The genitals of some men who had been killed were mutilated as well.}} I know you have the competence to edit here, so Im not going to pretend you dont understand the difference between "suggests" and "proven". I am not going to pretend like you dont know something has been proven by video footage means there is video footage proving it. There is not a single source saying that. There are sources saying that eyewitnesses have made accounts of rape, gang rape, and sexual mutilation, there are sources that saying that first responders have said they have seen signs of rape, there are sources that say that there is growing evidence of rape, there are NGOs that I highly respect (PHR Israel for example) saying that the available evidence suggests rapes occured and have demanded full investigations (which I personally agree with all parts of). But your claim was rapes have {{tq|been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred.}} That was false. It was made up. And it is not incivil to say that when you make something up that you made something up. Go right ahead, open anything you like. I know what you wrote, I know what I wrote, and I know what the sources say. What you wrote was not true. You are trying to present these things as though this is established fact that is accepted as fact by the sources, and any deviation from that is on its face denialism and offensive to basic decency. Noting that the sources are in fact attributing accusations and eyewitness accounts, and that they do not say anything about any video proving anything about this, when you are portraying them as establishing it as fact is not incivil. Report whatever you want. If you want to correct what you wrote feel free. I would of course adjust my comment in that case. But what you wrote, and still have on the talk page, is not true. It is made up. ''']''' - 23:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's what you don't understand. You disagreed with my statement on it being "proven," and I'm granting you that "proven" was not the right word to use, but that it was "more likely true than not." However in the process you accused me of fabricating information, a lie. AGF says you must assume that I made a mistake, not that I lied to you. You don't get that. I guess I'll see you at AE in a few days after I finish compiling all the diffs of your violation of civility over the last few weeks. There are quite a few. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's my amendment do you have any amendments, or shall we adjourn until we meet again? As I'll point out, you states {{tq| There is no video footage or photographs or documentary evidence, there are eyewitness accounts and there are denials}} and I provided those from NBC, which you said were probably fabricated. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. And NBC does not say there is any video footage of any rape. Where did I say anything was probably fabricated? ''']''' - 23:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that will do fine. Let it not be said I do not seek de-escalation. I'm referring to your statement about the babies. You made an equivalence that because the thing about the babies was fabricated, therefore the other rape stuff is also probably fabricated or falsified. You did not use that exact word, but that was your implication. That's not a civility violation, mind you. I'm just explaining what I meant. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I was saying that an organization that has repeatedly proven itself to have provided accounts that have turned out to be totally manufactured should probably not be just taken as gospel for other accounts. I believe you have a similar feeling wrt sources like Fox News. Thats the problem with embellishment, it makes people trust you less even when youre telling the truth. When ZAKA spreads these wild rumors, and then they get repeatedly debunked, it makes people question their credibility. Chaim Levinson . ''']''' - 00:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've never even heard of ZAKA before today. But if BBC and NBC and other reliable sources are covering it and there's video and photos and documentation, that does not matter. And I'm not sure why to bring up Levinson. Here's a column from him He clearly refers to the Hamas footage. {{tq|In one bit of footage from the Hamas terrorists’ GoPro cameras, as reported by foreign media, a terrorist is heard phoning his father and jubilantly telling him, “I killed 10 Jews!”}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The tweet from Levinson is about how these false stories are gifts to Hamas, and admonishing the people sharing them to be smarter. I’m aware of his reporting but I have no idea what why you think that’s relevant. ''']''' - 01:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::SFR is warning us above that we should cool it. I'm not sure after reading his warning you both a) told him he's making a mistake, and b) responded again to the thread arguing about this. So, at the risk of this message itself being escalation, I am going to try to abide by SFR's warning and this will be my last message here for a while unless I need to notify you of something. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == What to do about disruptive users == | |||
| I've interacted with a user who has been difficult to collaborate with who also seems to be making lots of disruptive edits on the site. For example: | |||
| * Changing phrasing in a weird way that is definitely POV but claims it is not POV... https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Black_Friday_%28bombing_campaign%29&diff=1191467534&oldid=1191270812 | |||
| * Introducing a term which is not used in any of the cited sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1191716916 | |||
| * Removing a paragraph because they don't like any of the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1191709647 | |||
| * Also, they have reverted all the edits I made simply because I no longer have EC. They didnt bring up any issue with the content | |||
| Is there a process for formally reviewing an editors recent edits for issues? Can I just add a topic here with my concerns? or do they issues need to be linked to a specific wikipedia guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ? ] (]) 15:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :This place is much more toxic (and especially hostile to new editors) than I could have guessed, while allowing users like this to continue with their activities, uninterrupted. Truly a shame. ] (]) 15:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Only tangentially related to the above, but users seem so slow to respond to Talk page posts. Most of my posts on their get ignored or just get forgotten. Another case of interacting with that user where they reverted a change of mine which removed a quote which is not present in any of the sources (!!) https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Oslo_Accords#c-Yr_Enw-20231224171000-Yr_Enw-20231224170200 The talk page is silent. I understand it's around Christmas, but admins are eager to chime in to share support for my EC permission being revoked meanwhile something like this goes ignored. ] (]) 15:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@], listen, you need to slow down and take a minute to relax and expect that the body of editors at AN will try to look at things with AGF in mind to consider the issue carefully. The rapid fire comments one after another is going to discourage that, not encourage that. At the admin boards, more than any other place, less is more. Youve made your point, but you have to stop harping on it until people engage with it. ''']''' - 22:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Got it ] (]) 01:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Words can hurt == | |||
| Nableezy, I find insulting. I understand you don't like my style. And I saw you use negative terminology over and over again. This isn't the first time you do this to people ( ). I am asking you to try and speak in a positive tone. ] (]) 15:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Which part? The grammar is garbage part? Sorry, Ill try to be less harsh, but Elad you are editing the lead of an English language encyclopedia article. You have to do it with better English. If you cant then suggest an edit on the talk page and let somebody with better command of English grammar make the edit. As far as the other edits, i24 is a garbage source with a demonstrated history of publishing bullshit, and I dont know who I am insulting besides i24 in that. The latter comment was a response on my talk page. If somebody is going to badger me with complaints that I reverted some garbage that was shoved in the lead Im probably going to tell them why I did it. ''']''' - 22:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think if you look at all my edits you will agree that I am a valuable contributor to the English Misplaced Pages. Even though my writing might not be perfect sometimes (hopefully not too often), I think the info I added is crucial for a fair perspective. Got a better way to phrase it? Go for it. ] (]) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The info you added is subject to an ongoing RFC and that was why I removed it. If it had just been the grammar I would have fixed it. I decline to comment on anything else here. ''']''' - 14:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| |1=The following sanction now applies to you: | |||
| {{Talkquote|1=You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 90 days.}} | |||
| You have been sanctioned for ] editing. | |||
| This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. | |||
| You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ] (]) 16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hi Nableezy, in the open ] arbitration case, a ] which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the ]. For a guide to the proposed decision, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 21:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hol up you’re going topic ban me for saying something that an uninvolved admin agreed with at AN, for answering a question on my user talk page, and for an edit you already cautioned me for? I get what you’re trying to do here but this is silly. ''']''' - 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you taking about ? ] (]) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::(tpw) I can't be sure whether I would have taken this action or not but a round of sanctions for a group of noisy editors might be best to allow the conversation to move forward. But in your case specifically, you must have seen something like this coming. I greatly appreciate your mainspace work and your input on talk pages when you provide cogent, policy-based rationales; that kind of editing is rare and extremely valuable in contentious topic areas. But you've spent a lot of time lately bickering with other editors and getting into lengthy back-and-forths over side issues. I know it sometimes feels like you have to reply to everything but perhaps you need to take a step back and see how that looks to an outsider. What would you think if you saw two editors at each other's throats if the context was American politics or pseudoscience, for example? Not expecting you to agree with me, just food for thought. ] | ] 17:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:11, 12 January 2025
advice for article creation
hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks Eatlandlords (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed decision of Palestine-Israel articles 5 posted
Hi Nableezy, in the open Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)