| Revision as of 19:07, 10 September 2010 view sourceNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,512 edits Undid revision 384069523 by Nishidani (talk)Sorry! Struck out improper term, but theme is offlimits.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:15, 27 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Nableezy/Archive 58) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- {{Contentious topics/aware|a-i|blp|ap}} --> | |||
| <div style="text-align: center;">I was smoking the other night and I began to violently cough. I coughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. So what did I do next? Smoked some more to try to ease the pain.</div> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| ⚫ | | algo = old(10d) | ||
| ⚫ | |archiveheader = {{ |
||
| ⚫ | | archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | |maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
| |counter = |
| counter = 58 | ||
| ⚫ | | maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| ⚫ | | archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = User talk:Nableezy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | | minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box collapsible | |||
| |auto=long | |||
| |<inputbox> | |||
| bgcolor=transparent | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=User_talk:Nableezy | |||
| break=no | |||
| width=25 | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == ] updates == | |||
| == Topic ban notification == | |||
| Pursuant to ], 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 ], or to ArbCom. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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 ] 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, ]'s commercial activities in Syria, ], 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 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. --] (]) 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 ], 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:) ] (]) 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::::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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::::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 ] 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.--] (]) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Im a African, never been an African-American. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::::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 ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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 ] article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 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 ] 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :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. ] (]) 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You really think it is "reasonably necessary" to ban Shuki from edits to ] or me from edits to ] or ]? 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| == Not sure why you moved my vote == | |||
| Hi there. I noticed that you moved my vote , and I'm not sure why. I'm not so well versed in how to do everything perfectly on WP, but I would have appreciated it if you could have explained whatever I might have done wrong, and given me a chance to correct, before you acted to move my vote. Again, I'm not sure why you did that. Is that a common practice? Thanks for any help. --] (]) 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I moved your "vote" because you interrupted another user's comments. Chesdovi wrote that if the move was opposed that he or she would propose removing "the following content" from the article. That content was in a collapsible box immediately following Chesdovi's comment. Your comment was placed between Chesdovi's comment and the content that was being discussed. Had your "vote" remained in that location it would make Chesdovi's comment difficult to understand. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| == List of alleged collaborators == | |||
| Why did you contest the prod? If you remove it, you should explain why. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, ] and a clue-bat • <sup>(])</sup> 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :will do at the talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :and done. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made: | |||
| == Evidence == | |||
| First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective. | |||
| You said you know who it is , please ad your evidence here: --] (]) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I do know who it is, but at the moment I am not inclined to say. The IP isnt a "sockpuppet" as there is no overlap in edits. My concern is that the IP is purposely "evading scrutiny" by editing as an IP unconnected to any history the named user has. But I kinda sorta like the named user, of those on the "other side" this one was not a complete twat. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::Nableezy. You have implicitly referred to a large segment of the community as "Twats," which is a less than flattering term. Please either retract the insult or strike it from your page.--] (]) 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I actually explicitly said that one user is not a twat. I made and make no comment on whether anybody else is a twat. But what about "be gone" do you not understand? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::How are you still allowed to edit here with that mentality? Don't worry about it JJG. Eventually the admins will stop giving him passes. Let him talk as much as he wants.] (]) 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Were you not asked, multiple times, to leave this page alone? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::::While you are free to have Nableezy (and my) talk pages on your watchlist, do you have to chime in everytime you think a clarification or scolding is in order (both on our pages and at AE, ANI, or anywhere else you think someone might act on your wishes)? Reminds me of my busybody neighbour who everyone tries to avoid lest they get an earful of unsolicited advice with a finger wagged in their face. | |||
| ::::@Nableezy, Ramadan Karim my friend. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Shukran, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Lol... while I am in no way admitting any connection to that IP, I appreciate the halfhearted compliment Nableezy. Of all of your "friends" here on Misplaced Pages, you too are one of the very, very few non-'twats'. Salamat (yes, that is the slaughtered Arabic that we Israelis stole and now use in a sense that wouldn't otherwise make sense), ] (]) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> | |||
| :It was not halfhearted. I wholeheartedly feel that you are not a twat. Take care, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::Wow... I actually thought ] was more of the more cretinous I/P warriors. I'm surprised you found a soft spot in your heart for him nab. ] (]) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Action requested on Alison Weir page == | |||
| == ] case == | |||
| Nableezy, if you are a "Confirmed-extended" editor as I assume, would you be kind enough to take a look at my requested edit of a paragraph in the protected-extended entry "Alison Weir" and take action on it? It just sits there...thanks.... kenfree ] (]) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {| align="left" style="background: transparent;" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Your name has been mentioned in connection with a ] case. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. '']] ]'' 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I really did not think you were that stupid. Thanks for enlightening me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:15, 27 December 2024
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA
. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Action requested on Alison Weir page
Nableezy, if you are a "Confirmed-extended" editor as I assume, would you be kind enough to take a look at my requested edit of a paragraph in the protected-extended entry "Alison Weir" and take action on it? It just sits there...thanks.... kenfree Kenfree (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)