Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 9 June 2011 (→Restriction of your account is modified as follows: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Banned from editing Palestine-Israel pages for 2 months

In connection with a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement on 8 May 2011, you are prohibited until 20:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC) from editing any page that relates, broadly interpreted, to the Arab-Israeli conflict, under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. If you violate this prohibition, your account will be blocked by way of enforcement. You are welcome to discuss this sanction with me at any time on my talk page, or privately by e-mail, and you a right to appeal under the provision at WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. AGK 20:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to appeal this decision. Your lack of knowledge is demonstrated by your comments about a thrid opinion. WP:3O is specifically meant to get another view when there are 2 users arguing amongst themselves. To use me using a proper DR measure to support your decision is dumbfounding. nableezy - 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually pay attention to whatever pages such an appeal would occur on, so please would you (or an appropriate stalk page talker) message me when such an appeal is filed. Having viewed this particular AE request, commented on it, and reviewed most or all of the comments and evidence presented, this sudden decision, with no public input from other arbs apart from one who did not opine on your behaviour at all...

... seems incomprehensible.

(Incidentally, AGK's user page suggests he would not, or should not, have a lack of knowledge about anything regarding Misplaced Pages arbitration, but I'll leave you to figure that out.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK nvm, I just found the appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have commented at your appeal, this sanction is scandalous. It is clear that there has been a determined campaign to silence you, using the flimsiest of excuses. Your apparent sixth sense for sockpuppets, as much as your reasoned and sane editing, seems to incense some people. I hope that you will be able to résumé this long before July, and look forward to continuing interaction with you. RolandR (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Roland, your kind words, as always, are very much appreciated. nableezy - 23:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at whatever it was that brought on this ban, so I have no opinion as to its utility or the justice of it. I hope you won't take it amiss if I say 1) I don't like seeing this but 2) you (and some other editors on the I side of the I-P wars) would be well-served by a more collegial attitude, and less use of AE as a vehicle for "gotcha." This isn't to scold you, honestly, it's because I have enjoyed working with you in the past, and think you add to the discussions you're in (when you aren't pissed off).

(NB: I haven't followed every single edit you've made, not even close, so perhaps you've done things that would horrify me, though I really doubt it.) Cheers and good luck. IronDuke 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true tho. Well, kinda. I do file a lot of AE requests, but I get involved in a lot of problems. You have to know this is true, there are a ton more active "pro-Is" than "pro-Ps". And counting the socks? Sheeeeeeeit. Im not complaining, just the way it is. And Im not trying to get into an argument about how many people are on what side, of the "regulars" there is a clear majority for a certain "side". There really are not that many editors here that work on these articles (settlements, territories, wars, whatever) that try to make sure that certain facts are acknowledged in these articles. And these are facts. For example, do you dispute any part of the following sentence: the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank/East Jerusalem/Golan Heights to be illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. I cannot see how anyone can. Yet it took me literally years to get that line in to articles on settlements, and it is not even in half the East Jerusalem ones. I have been banned or subject to some other restriction for ~4.5 months for the "dispute" surrounding the inclusion of this wholly uncontroversial fact. "Disputes" like this are impossible without an effective way of countering the steady stream of bullshit employed to stop the dispute from every being solved. So I file AE requests. Now, to the current "dispute". There is an area, I hope you will agree, called East Jerusalem. That name has a commonly understood meaning, at least among informed sources. Ramot, and the rest of the "ring neighborhoods", are in that area. However, those articles do not include that, instead saying things like "north of the Green Line". The articles say things like "north of the Green Line" because the authors of these articles know that nobody reading that will understand the consequences of being "north of the Green Line" in this area are, even after they clicked the link to the article on the Green Line, they will not understand why being north of that line matters. If the article were to say "East Jerusalem" an uninformed person would be easily able to understand why that matters. The articles say things like this because the authors dont want people to understand these things. These arent colonies in occupied territory, they are neighborhoods in the capital city. That perception must be maintained, so the inclusion of the fact that Ramot is largely in East Jerusalem is fought tooth and nail. Layer upon layer of bullshit is stacked up like cinder blocks making a wall to prevent that fact from being included. I have a low tolerance for such games. But because I have such a low tolerance for these games, and because the people who play them are many, I will invariably upset a few of them who will in turn bring me to AE. On occasion that is justified. More often it is not. But even those times that it is not there may well be an admin who looks at the surface of these complaints and make a quick, perhaps foolish, decision. This is one of those times.

What can I do about this? I suppose I could go the way of your boy (the artist formerly known as NoCal100) and start making a gang of accounts. Just kidding of course. But I have to give that ***t credit, he is persistent and effective. But other than that, I am at a loss. When I am allowed to edit, I wont simply accept that these games be allowed to carry the day. I just dont have it in me to see that type of crap and do nothing about it. That attitude may well lead to NoCal's (and a few others) wet dream of me being indef banned. If so, oh well. I tried. I got a few things done, "met" some interesting people, and avoided doing my job for a few years. Everybody wins. nableezy - 03:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It pains me to write this, but you may well know more about East Jerusalem than I, so I wouldn't think of contradicting you without doing research, which I promised myself, when I had the chance, I would save for another article that needs my attention. As to your P v. I contention, I can say with some assurance not that you're wrong, but that you cannot know. There are socks aplenty on both sides, sadly. Perhaps all pro I editors are the sock of one master (and perhaps you are his sock as well, just to add spice). I'm being a bit facetious, but I think you see my point. FWIW, from my experience, a good deal of the pro-P editors I have come across are 1) extremely hostile to even minor compromise and 2) really rude. One of the reasons I enjoy working with you is that you 1) are willing to compromise and 2) tend usually only to be rude when provoked. But the last word there is key: you can't let yourself get provoked. And I may have said this before, but I know whereof I speak when I say Misplaced Pages is often a deeply hateful place. Focusing on that will lead to frustration, and eventual banning. If that happens, we all lose. Just as, I daresay, NoCal100 not being able to edit -- or G-Dett not being able to edit - makes us all lose. IronDuke 03:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Im not saying your wrong, just impractical. I do not have it in me to not respond harshly to shit like this. There is not a single sentence in there that is not "neutral", but some **** feels like it is fine to remove this because it "politicizing" Misplaced Pages. I see something like that, and an involuntary chain of reactions occur, beginning with a combination of the worst words in two languages combining to form an insult that I sometimes almost feel bad for allowing to pass my lips. The end, typically, is a topic ban. Things like that piss me off, that aint going to change. And the way this place is set up, that I am right about these issues, and I am right, is of secondary concern. That I dont stay in between the lines, thats what counts. Whatever tho, Ima wait to see what happens with this appeal. I cant believe that such a decision will be upheld, but then again I still cant believe that the WB/JS ended the way it did. This place has a habit of surprising me. One last thing. There is a difference between NoCal100 not being allowed to edit and G-Dett not being allowed to edit. The latter means that G-Dett actually doesnt edit. nableezy - 05:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Nableezy: those who support your position within the P/I dispute have vociferously supported your AE appeal. I'm unsurprised. Luckily, it's a consensus of uninvolved administrators, rather than a raw majority, which decides the outcome of an appeal. As a side issue: you've grossly misjudged what I was saying about the 3O. I was quite careful to present my thinking clearly, but you somehow managed to misunderstand anyway. Ach well. AGK 08:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So what? I am entirely surprised by what I have just read by an editor. Have you completed dis-merited people's opinions on the basis of Nableezy's ban because you think they support his position on the P/I area? Aside from their so called "positions", are the truthful things that they say (none of the points of which I have seen you respond to) entirely trumped by the fact that you see that they support Nableezy's editing in the P/I arena? That is what it seems like me after reading this comment. -asad (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

AGK, this is not supposed to be a battle between me and you. Your "Luckily ..." comment seems a bit out of place, though understandable in the context of admins who loathe their decisions being overturned. If you would like to clarify your comment about my use of a 3O then by all means, go right ahead. But how about we get to the actual matter of dispute here. How about this: instead of a topic ban you give me a 1R/week restriction for those same two months. The "problems" that I have invariably are a result of reverting, so restrict that. That would force me to do things like open RFCs, and yes ask for third opinions, and the other steps in DR instead of reverting. nableezy - 13:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, I am aware of the history that is following you, be it the good (where you're accused of something without good cause), the bad (where the accusations were justifiable), and the ugly (where you've been treated horribly despite being good). It is in light of this and in light of the problems which are repeatedly popping up in this area that I've presented 3 options for you to consider at AE. In the little time that is left, I do hope you will have a good think about which you prefer. It may not seem like it now and it may not even have been intended as such, but I do see more good coming from this for you if you swallow it as is for the short term - fortnight. That said, I won't stop the inevitable if this is how things are meant to pan out and I've specifically left it to you to decide which option you prefer. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy: Apologies for the delayed response. I'm not sure why you get the impression that I have made this a "battle" between us, and I'm unsure how to respond other than by saying that it isn't. My opinion as an uninvolved administrator is simply that your conduct in the I/P topic area is problematic, and that opinion stands having re-evaluated the whole matter in light of your appeal. Whilst a 1RR/week restriction might go some way to mitigating the problem, in my view it would simply protract your revert wars; and, to be honest, I'd rather that you edit warred over a short period of time than a long one, because it's easier to notice that way. Sorry, but the sanctions are warranted, and I won't lift them; but I will look at some other contributors to the I/P topic area and see if I can't do anything there too. Regards, AGK 13:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My impression was based on your use of the word "luckily", which suggests that you are invested in keeping said sanction in place. Your life as far as the rest. If you think 3 reverts, all three of which were completely supported by policy while the other editors reverts were blatant policy violations, in a week warrants a 2 month topic ban so be it. But know I will be expecting consistency from you in that regard and that AE could very well grow by megabytes with reports on "revert wars" that involve such a number of reverts. nableezy - 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not process as many complaints at AE as some other administrators, and I am active on a wide variety of topic areas—not just I/P. But if I were asked, I would probably call myself more severe than lenient, so that expectation does not worry me. Regards, AGK 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reported your violation of this topic ban at WP:AE Rym torch (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot wait for you to be blocked. I want you to know that I know for certain that you are NoCal, and that you have a tell stretching back all the way to Isarig. nableezy - 23:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible amendment to your topic ban

Hi Nableezy. You recently suggested that I reduce the two-month topic ban that I placed on your account, to a 1RR/week restriction. I rejected that suggestion, because it would be conducive to protracted edit warring. Upon reflection, I am willing to revisit your suggestion.

The appeal seems to be headed for an inconclusive outcome, which means that it will be unsuccessful (which is the default). I wonder if you would want to discuss a modified version of your suggestion. While reviewing some I/P articles in the course of my current review of the topic area (which isn't having much success, because I really don't know where the real problems are at), I noticed that you are more diligent than most in discussing changes of yours that are contested. I am no longer as worried as I was about you engaging in protracted edit warring, although I still think that some sanction is warranted in light of your earlier edit warring at Ramot etc.

Don't let it be said that I'm not fair :). AGK 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello AGK. I do indeed have a history of edit-warring, though since my return from my most recent topic ban I have attempted to refrain from such activity. I should have opened the RFC at Ramot earlier, I acknowledge that. But if you are open to discussing some other restriction in place of a topic ban I would, of course, be willing to do so. You tell me, what do you think I need to stop doing? If you are looking for answers to what the "real problems" are, I would be happy to explain what I see are the underlying issues. nableezy - 15:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, you can see my thoughts on another possible option for yourself and AGK to consider here. Cheers. ← George 20:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George, but I dont think that is the best idea. Ill wait for AGKs suggestion. nableezy - 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Didn't see you & AGK were already discussing possible alternatives until after I commented, so I'll leave you guys to it. ← George 22:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy: Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, please tell me your thoughts on the topic area generally. I want you to stop edit-warring and to discuss all major changes when they are disputed, and preferably before you even make them. From experience, I know that most editors of contested topic areas need sanctioned if they are to do that. The unresolved question for me is precisely what sanction would fair, but still effective. Regards, AGK 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are asking me is not something I can answer in a few sentences; I will answer, but I want to arrange my thoughts. nableezy - 23:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town these past days. There are several problems with the topic area, starting with the rampant sockpuppetry, which has a demonstrable effect in both introducing a consistent slant to a number of articles and in being used to get others topic banned. There is also a problem in how admins deal with the topic area. An additional problem is the off-wiki collaboration that has always been suspected and occasionally proven. As far as editor conduct, the biggest problems that I see are the fillibustering and the misuse of the word "consensus", a word that that has little meaning when the sockpuppetry is taken into account. But the fundamental problem with the topic area, and possibly with WP in general in contentious topics, is the inability to enforce the content policies of the website and ensure that material is sourced to the highest quality sources, and not whatever somebody can find on google.

As far as the sockpuppetry, look at the following two cases, Isarig and Dajudem. Isarig was very nearly banned twice, and only escaped this in the end by "vanishing". Since then, the user has been among the more effective sockpuppeteers; among his accomplishments was having two accounts party to the same arbitration case which saw 5 supposedly "pro-Palestinian" editors banned largely as a result of edit-wars he stoked. He has not stopped, piling up thousands of edits with multiple accounts since ARBPIA2 (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of NoCal100, which is missing a few names). Dajudem initial account did little of importance besides being involved in the CAMERA wikilobbying case. After given a time limited topic ban, the user made no further edits. Instead, a new account went after one of the admins who helped uncover the wikilobbbying campaign. This new account was successfully able to have this admin article banned, then proceeded to hound this admin, purely out of spite, to random topics. This account, Tundrabuggy, was eventually discovered to be a sock of Dajudem. When this happened, a new account then choose a new target, and was, again, successfully able to, by playing the role of newbie overwhelmed by these rules on NPOV and edit warring, get this target topic banned. Eventually, this account (Stellarkid), was discovered to be another sock. This story has continued to repeat, with yet more accounts coming back again and again (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Dajudem, which, as soon as I am free to file a report, may see yet another username added). A huge number of sockpuppets plague the topic area, and while there are a couple of "pro-P" users that sock the evidence shows a clear majority of socks lining up on one side. Additionally, I have yet to witness an example where supposed "pro-P" users attempt to protect or excuse sockpuppetry, something that can be seen from a number of users at SPIs for Dajudem or Historicist. A roll call of users, from the 2 above to Historicist, Drork, and Ledenierhomme (I include AFolksSingersBeard with him) to others that have evaded topic bans as IPs or named accounts, banned users continue to be a nuisance, both in advancing their agendas and in generating sanctions against others.

Another important factor in making this topic area as poor as it is, as far as the articles go, is the way it is administered. I ask you, if Misplaced Pages is at all serious about being a reference, which of the following actions should be treated with the harshest measures? Misrepresenting a source or edit warring? Should the user edit warring and ignoring the source be treated the same as the user edit warring and providing the sources? The reverts for which I was topic banned at Ramot are illustrative of this problem. There is nearly no dispute among the sources about this point, even the source the editor who filed the AE report brought to support his reverts at that article agrees with my edit (to be more specific, AU brought an Israeli NGOs paper to support his view that Ramot is not in EJ, however that NGO explicitly includes Ramot in EJ). And yet, the content of the reverts are not taken into consideration. This leads to considerable gaming of these restrictions by editors whose purpose is not to build a NPOV article that properly reflects to sources but are rather aimed at stymieing attempts to do so.

This leads to the issue of filibustering. The word "consensus" is abused on a regular basis in this topic area. Editors, refusing to provide sources for their claims, are able to block anything they wish. Simply by saying "NO NO NO", users are able to stop what are uncontroversial facts, uncontroversial outside of WP at least. It is a wholly noncontroversial thing to say "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this". However, over the course of years, including multiple topic bans for attempting to include this uncontroversial fact that can be sourced to a thousand high quality sources, multiple users were able to block this line from being included. Admins are reluctant to actually evaluate the strength of an argument because it inevitably leads to claims that admin is "involved". So we have head counts where the personal feelings of a set of users are allowed equal, actually higher, footing with actual sources.

Because admins are reluctant to actually evaluate the arguments, the content policies become unenforceable. Users are able to simply say no and block the policies from being applied. This happens regularly at AFD, where, with the help of both the occasionally proven but often suspected off wiki private coordination and through the use of blogs and other websites directing others to "contribute immeasurably to the Hasbara effort", articles that have no place being in an "encyclopedia" get kept because of "no consensus".

nableezy - 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone somewhere (forget exactly) suggested that I/P articles should be semi-protected by default. It seems to me that the area is mature enough that slowing down genuine new users wouldn't hurt articles very much, and this negative would be generously compensated by the greater difficulty of sock-puppetry. I'm inclined to support this proposal, how you you feel about it? Zero 09:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was me. - BorisG (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is too easy to be autoconfirmed. That would only stop people socking for a specific edit war by making a new account or logging out, but it would do anything about the editors like NoCal and Dajudem. nableezy - 12:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the kind people over at Wikibias's Blog would care to make some suggestions.     ←   ZScarpia   16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist making a dig at them ... but they do seem to have taken a dislike to your SPI reports)

• Nableezy: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Would you be open to amending the sanction so that the only restriction was that every unique change of yours could only be made once per month? In essence, that would mean that you could only remove a given portion of unique material once per month. Further text that you had not previously reverted would be counted as separate. There would also be a general obligation, as part of an amendment to this sanction, to engage in consensus-building discussion if another editor undid your revert. Is that clear, and would this be acceptable to you? AGK 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, if I understand, but I honestly think you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. How about this: I may not revert any change of mine that I make from now until the ban is scheduled to end, be it a revert or an edit, that is reverted. Instead, I would be required to gain consensus for the edit and have somebody else make the needed change. There is about one month left on my topic ban, so both your suggestion and mine have the same effect (unless you meant to have yours be of an indefinite length). Though I should add that I think there should be an exception for reverting edits by IPs, much like the current topic wide 1RR. You may have noticed, but I have built up a small but devoted following of disgruntled editors that take every opportunity to annoy me. Minimizing that noise would be, in my opinion, wise. nableezy - 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My modification would expire at the same time as my initial sanction would. I am happy to go with your proposal, because it would prevent you from edit warring, while retaining your constructive contributions to talk page discussions and other aspects of I/P article development. Proposed as follows:

The existing restriction of Nableezy is vacated. In its place, on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Nableezy is prohibited from re-doing any change of his that is reverted by another user, unless he would be reverting with the consent of the other editor or the support of editorial consensus. Nableezy is not prohibited from reverting obvious vandalism, edits which violate the policy on biographies of living people, edits by anonymous users, or any change to non-article pages or pages not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This restriction will expire on 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC). Nableezy is instructed to pursue consensus for any change of his that is reverted, and to not engage in edit-warring in any form.

Are you agreeable? AGK 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Ps) I didn't see your comment about IPs until just now, when our edits conflicted, but I had already written that provision into my proposal. AGK 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. nableezy - 20:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I thought that the sanction was a bit unfair given that the plan to look into other editors did not get anywhere. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I warned you about this two months ago. While you haven't explicitly violated WP:OUTING, it appears to me that you were attempting to take a potshot over the digital trench, so to speak, and pushing the rules without explicitly breaking them. Accordingly, I have blocked you indefinitely (though infinitely). You are free to make a case for an unblock, though you're going to have to state clearly to me or another administrator what steps you will take to prevent this kind of situation from occurring again.

Administrators uninvolved with Arab-Israeli articles who wish to review this block but cannot understand why I made it, please email me. There is a significant deal of background information here that Nableezy, myself, and several other editors and administrators are aware of but that should not be made public. NW (Talk) 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify for reviewing administrators: This is not an AE block. NW (Talk) 22:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no edit that outed any user, and I defy you to give one example. "Attempting to take a potshot over the digital trench" is simply your imagination, helped no doubt by an email you received earlier. I was asked, by an administrator, to give an account of the problems with this topic area. One of those problems is the off-wiki collaboration and recruiting by a set of dedicated users, calling on like minded people to engage in hasbara (or what the rest of us call propaganda). I quoted from one of those examples. I did not associate that quote with any user. You may not wish to make this public, but you cannot block a user for quoting from something published in a large number of places, including FrontPageMag and Arutz Sheva. Oh, and I replied to you 2 months ago, a reply that you saw fit to ignore. You yourself admit that I broke no rule. That you think I am pushing the limits is simply an unfounded accusation. If I had wanted to push the limits I would have, as I actually know what the limits are. nableezy - 20:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you for clarifying to other administrators, but perhaps you should consider clarifying for me what exactly I did wrong. I did not associate any user with any comment made off-wiki. All I did was quote, accurately and without linking to any Misplaced Pages user, something written and distributed in a number of places. How in the world does that justify an indefinite block? nableezy - 23:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you offering to explain your reasoning to others, do I qualify for an explanation? Yes, I know what specifically prompted the block, though I have not the faintest understanding how it could be worthy of any block at all. Please explain to me, preferably here or off-wiki if necessary, how can my quoting, without making any reference to any Misplaced Pages user, something readily available online and published in multiple venues be grounds for a block of any length, much less an indefinite one? nableezy - 00:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a completely unjustified block, made without any basis in the blocking policy, one that even NW above admits is not based on any violation. NW has blocked me for including the quote, in response to a request by an admin that I give an account of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area, "contribute immeasurably to the Hasbara effort", taken from, among other places, here and here. My quoting that line violated no policy and cannot result in a block. NW says that the edit he blocked me for did not break any rule. If that is the case, there is no basis for the block. His feeling that my comment was an attempt at a "potshot over the digital trench" is not a basis for the indefinite blocking of a user with over 20,000 edits.

Accept reason:

By NW's own admission, there was no actual outing done. I do understand the reason for the block, or at least I believe so; essentially it was an attempt to blow a raspberry by making a reference to a previous incident that involved outing. I don't see this block as abuse. But I don't think this warrants an indefinite block. I'm unblocking with the judgement of "time served" and hope that Nableezy is wise enough to steer clear of this behavior in the future. -- Atama頭 23:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, though honestly I was not trying to reference any past outing incident. Perhaps I should not have used an exact quote, but even then, I was just giving an example, one of many, of one of the problems in the topic area, as I was asked to do. I wont directly reference or quote, at least on purpose, that editorial again though. nableezy - 00:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please clear the remaining autoblock (2894771)? nableezy - 00:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the block. NW, can you email me about whatever you are talking about? T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As another block reviewer, it's not clear to me which edits this block is in response to. I echo Timotheus Canens's request for clarification.  Sandstein  06:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I got a reply from NW. It was in response to this series of edits, specifically the quote in the last paragraph. T. Canens (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how mentioning the alleged existence of a website that asks people to "contribute immeasurably to the Hasbara effort" constitutes outing. As far as I can tell, the website is not named and it is not connected, in Nableezy's comment, to any identified or identifiable editor. Unless there's something I miss in this appreciation of the situation, I'm inclined to undo this block as unfounded. I'm asking the blocking admin to comment.  Sandstein  06:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have received e-mails telling me how this phrase can be used to (allegedly) associate a real name with an account. I am nonetheless unconvinced by the merits of the block. As far as I can tell, the phrase was quoted without association to the editor or person at issue, but rather to illustrate what Nableezy believes is a particularly remarkable exercise in offwiki canvassing. Nobody who is not already aware of the issue is likely to use the quotation of this phrase to make the association between account and editor. As such, I believe that this incident does not warrant a block for outing. But I am not ready to unilaterally overturn another admin's judgment simply because I myself would not have made the block, and I agree that this topic area in general needs a zero-tolerance approach.  Sandstein  06:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So where exactly does that leave me? nableezy - 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Still blocked. You can wait for another administrator to grant your unblock request, or (and that's what I suggest) try to convince the blocking admin that you will no longer engage in the sort of conduct that led to this block. Or you can appeal to WP:BASC.  Sandstein  20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont see how option 2 is possible. NW has so far refused to even acknowledge my replies to him. He only posted an explanation for the block when prompted by you, despite my repeated requests that he do so. Below I give several errors of fact in his explanation. He has yet to respond. If the blocking admin refuses to address my responses just how I am supposed to convince him of anything? I dont see how my conduct led to this block. NW claims my quoting something that somebody published in multiple locations is grounds for an indefinite block. That is neither supported by the blocking policy or by any type of logic. How am I supposed to convince NW of anything if he refuses to respond to me? nableezy - 22:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive sent him an email as he seems to be unwilling to respond to me here. But if there is no response to that I dont know what options I have besides BASC. nableezy - 23:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, I will file at WP:AN if NW does not undo this block very soon. There is no conduct on your part that justifies this block. Your comment was a response was to AGK's request that you outline the problems in this topic area as you see them and there is nothing in your comment that could be seen as provocative in that context. The wider community needs to see what is going on in this topic area. Admins seem to be abusing their discretionary powers. Tiamut 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it is worth the hassle, Id like to see how long an unblock request can stay up before somebody does something, anything, with it first. nableezy - 22:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I am not a friend of Nableezy's and, on the contrary, have often found myself on opposite sides in article arguments. Nonetheless, I urge you to reverse this block, which, based on the evidence that NW has offered, seems completely unfounded. Or perhaps there is more, secret evidence that I don't know about? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

More detailed block reason

Several users have asked that I more clearly explain myself, and I suppose that is only fair. So here goes. It's rather vague in some parts, and I do apologize for that:

About two months ago, another Wikipedian (A) linked an article that another Wikipedian (B) had written off-wiki to their onwiki account. The two editors had been in an editorial conflict at the time, and as B had never linked his real life identity to his Misplaced Pages account, it was completely out of line. Several admins spoke to A and he eventually agreed to play nice. The edits A made linking the two were revdeleted and later oversighted.

Meanwhile, after the edits had already been oversighted, Nableezy decides it would be a wonderful idea to stir the pot again and repost the articles and their connection to B. I got those edits oversighted and threatened to block him if he ever did anything like that again; that diff is in my block notice.

Today, he reposted an unusual quote that had to come from the article. While that wouldn't be blockable by itself, to me and another admin that I emailed to doublecheck my thoughts, it seemed to be further evidence of the disruptive battleground behavior. Let me post (slightly edited) what that admin said, because I agree with almost all of it:

"I will qualify what I'm about to say by stating that I have started to take a very hard line on ARBPIA-related disruption (from either side) because I'm sick of the tit-for-tat and the wikilawyering and all the rest of it.

It does look like Nableezy tried (again) to "out" A and outing is ample grounds for an indef block, so I don't think it's overkill. Nableezy's not stupid and he knows how far he can push the rules without explicitly violating them, but you explicitly warned him a while back...He's the ability to be an asset to the project, but he also has a battleground mentality and will go to great lengths to eliminate an "opponent".

I think the analogy of "digital trenches" is about right (see this week's Signpost) and Nableezy has a habit of taking potshots over the top more than most (though that's not to say there aren't equally disruptive editors taking potshots at him from their own trench)."

Hope this helps. I would not be opposed to an unblock if there were some way to eliminate these "potshots". NW (Talk) 23:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I did not "repost the articles" or "their connection to B". It is also untrue that this occurred after the edits by A had been deleted. You deleted the edits by A at 05:26, 4 March 2011. My edits were made several hours before that at 2:14 and 2:42 that same day. And you did not get those edits oversighted, at least as far as I know, you, yourself, revdel'd them. The only thing I did at that time was link to a Misplaced Pages signpost article that linked to that article. I did not link that to any user anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Now, as far as the comments by the unnamed admin above I did not try, then or now, to out said user. In my response to AGKs request that I provide my thoughts on the ARBPIA topic area and its problems, I answered that one of the problems is the off-wiki collaboration and recruiting. One of the quotes that stuck with me over the past year from that article, in addition to my being an Islamofascist supported by Western enablers and that Richard Goldstone is apparently a "mercenary apostate", was "contribute to the Hasbara effort". I later checked to make sure my quote was accurate and saw that I was missing a word and corrected it. You are saying that because I quoted something that an editor chose to have published in multiple locations, without linking to the editor in any way, that I am attempting to "out" the user. That is asinine. No reading of WP:OUTING supports such a view. None at all. I did not link the quote to any user, I did not even link the quote to any article. You make these accusations about potshots without any supporting evidence. Please, pray tell, what "potshots" have I taken? How have I tried to eliminate the "opponent"? Do you mean the "opponents" that have been socking for years? Or the ones that have been able to remove any source that falls to the left of Meir Kahane? Am I really being punished because I have contributed to numerous SPI reports that have seen prolific sockpuppeters have their socks blocked? How is it that my quoting from an article that a user chose to publish in multiple locations without connecting that quote to any user grounds for any block at all? I was asked by an admin to provide my thoughts as to the problems that plague the ARBPIA topic area. I did that, and violated no rule in doing so. And now I am blocked for it? How charming. You want to say that this demonstrates a "battlefield mentality"? Really? The user that emailed you to request that I be blocked has made only a few edits since being topic banned. One was to call for Sandstein to have his adminship revoked, the next was to ask his ban be rescinded, the next, besides a few minor edits, was to call me a hypocrite. That and asking that I be blocked is everything this user has done in months. Yet that is not a "battlefield mentality". You got played by a user whose sole purpose is to get others blocked. An editor who has recruited others, in multiple venues, not just this article but also at the blog Atlas Shrugs, and at another website, to join him in slanting articles to the point that Palestinians would be called "displaced Jordanians" or the natives that had been driven from their homes would be "illegal squatters". There is no shame in being played, the same user had me confused for a bit. The shame is in not accepting that you have been played, in blustering it out and sticking by your guns. You have blocked me for what you yourself admits violates no policy. You did so without giving me so much as an opportunity to answer the charges against me. You then proceeded to deny giving me an explanation for over a full day. Thank you, you have reassured me of the quality of the administrators here. nableezy - 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In answer to "And you did not get those edits oversighted, at least as far as I know, you, yourself, revdel'd them". Yes, NuclearWarfare rev-deleted them, and they were later oversighted, as NuclearWarfare said above: "The edits A made linking the two were revdeleted and later oversighted." JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I know nothing of any oversighting. But thank you for reading one sentence of the above. Would you care to comment on the others? nableezy - 10:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

But, for the record, I was not discussing the edits by A, which NW says he deleted then had oversighted, and which your quote of NW is about, but rather the edits by me which I see he deleted. He may have gotten them oversighted, I have no idea as nobody informed me of that. If it was oversighted it should not have been, as linking to a signpost article, and doing nothing more than that, cannot be called outing by any definition of the word outing. nableezy - 22:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are alternative ways in which the sequence of events can be viewed, one being as follows. Editor B described his Misplaced Pages activities on multiple publicly-accessible sites using what is being assumed to be his real name (as it happens, not a particularly unique or unusual one). From the details supplied, it was easy to determine what the editor's Misplaced Pages identity was. In giving his real name and in supplying details which made his Misplaced Pages identity easily identifiable, presumably the editor either wanted to be identified or was indifferent to being identified. As the editor displayed all the prejudices and made all the typical disparaging remarks of of a bigoted right-wing Zionist, he was soon being discussed, with his real and editorial names linked, on an off-Misplaced Pages forum where Misplaced Pages matters are discussed. Eventually, editors on Misplaced Pages who Editor B was in dispute with, linked to Editor B's off-Misplaced Pages prose to demonstrate Editor B's ownership of hostile attitudes. Having previously shown, at best, disregard or indifference to the possibility of identified, shyness. or the pretence of it, then appears to have suddenly overcome Editor B, with the rather ridiculous outcome that an editor who had outed himself could not be held to account for remarks that he had made under his real name on the grounds that his already outed identity might be outed.     ←   ZScarpia   01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets just put this behind us. I dont see a reason to keep this going. nableezy - 03:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please delete my comment if you think it is unhelpful.     ←   ZScarpia   15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Aint like that, I would just rather put this in the past and leave it there. nableezy - 15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of this block

NW, thank you for the more detailed explanation of this block. Your decision raises several issues of principle, which would, perhaps be better discussed elsewhere. But since I am never involved in these disciplinary issues, I have no clear idea where that would be, so I am writing this here. Please feel free to direct me to some other page if you feel it is more appropriate.

1. What constitutes 'outting'?

I admit that I was totally mystified by your statement that Nableezy's quote from an external blog was, in some way, outting. As you suggested, I did a web search for the quoted phrase, and only after finding the source, and reading the blog entry in its entirety, did I realize that a Misplaced Pages user had been identified with a real person. Had you not pointed out that this connection was possible, I would never have discovered this. So, in a sense, it was not Nableezy, but you, who is responsible for "outting" this user.

Your decision seems to be based on an assumption that Nableezy's ulterior motive in using this quote was to direct readers' attention to this page, in order to reveal the user's identity. But it is a well-founded principle in western jurisprudence - a principle that Misplaced Pages would be wise to adopt - that a person is not judged by his thoughts, but by his actions. Nableezy may well have thought evil when he included this quote, but he did not do evil. Any damage that occurred from this incident is a result not of his action, but of yours.

2. When does the danger of outting override other principles of freedom of speech and information?

On the other hand, there is no dispute that the quote Nableezy used is germaine to the argument he was making. So the question is: knowing that the source of the quote also contained personal information about the author and the author's relationship to Misplaced Pages, was use of the quote forbidden?

The author of the quote published it on the internet, with the presumed intention that it would be read and perhaps reproduced. To disallow use of the quote because the page on which it appears also contains information which is disallowed in Misplaced Pages constitutes a rather bizarre and convoluted form of censorship.

If there were dozens of quotes like this on a variety of web pages, I would perhaps agree with you that selecting this particular one suggested an ulterior motive. That, however, is not the case. The opinions expressed in the blog in question appear pretty exclusively (as far as I know) to this blog and, perhaps, one other. So to imbue Nableezy's choice of source with dark intent, when the appropriateness of the quote is self-evident, is a little far-fetched.

3. The letter, vs. the intent, of the law

While Nableezy's action does not, prima facie, appear to be a violation of the letter of Misplaced Pages's policy on harassment, it most certainly is not a violation of the spirit of that policy. The policy is very clear as to purpose: "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages." In other words, the policy comes to respect the privacy of Misplaced Pages users and to protect them from harassment.

In this case, that argument is awfully weak. The offended user, whose identity is revealed in this blog entry, is one of the principals of the blog. His identity is freely offered, (though by another blogger, who is an associate of the first). The username is one that was banned from the Misplaced Pages more than two years ago, so the risk of damage to the user's reputation or person seems nonexistent.

I edit the Misplaced Pages under the user name Ravpapa, and I am not careful about concealing my true identity. If someone were to do a little sleuthing and publish my name, I might well be offended. On the other hand, if I were to publish in my personal blog that my name is (xxx) and my Misplaced Pages username is Ravpapa, I would be an odd character indeed to be affronted if someone noted that. When a person publishes information on the internet, it seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that citing that information is an invasion of privacy or an invitation to harassment.

4. In summary

NW, I can understand your thoughts in making this ban. Nableezy can be, as I know personally, a colossal pain in the butt.

On the other hand, your decision raises a number of issues of principle, which I have raised here, and which, perhaps, you had not considered in depth when taking this step.

Banning in Misplaced Pages is the extreme sanction. It is the death penalty. It should be used only in the extremest last resort, and then only after the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a Star Chamber decision.

I urge you to reconsider this ban.

Regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well after reading the original post and Nableezy's above riposte, I know exactly which user he is talking about, and who he has indirectly "outed". Very clever, but still outing. 93.91.196.124 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) - (Ledenierhomme sockpuppet. Blocked Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

So, it seems that even an astoundingly compulsive and unethical sockpuppeteer like Ledenierhomme (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive) has confirmned that NW highlighting this issue backfired. If someone like Ledenierhomme supports an admin action you can be confident that it's wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no understanding of the issues around this block, but Sean's logic is absurd. To use a historical example, the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian does not mean vegetarianism is wrong (in my opinion). - BorisG (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

But Hitler was not a vegetarian. And this block is wrong. RolandR (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Try not to take me literally or too seriously Boris, I'm English. There is a much irony and comic value in someone like Ledenierhomme, a serial sockpuppeteer Nableezy has helped identify on several occasions, complaining about policy violations here. I don't need any lessons in logic but thanks anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was silly. I have a terrible neckache and this does not lend itself to good humour. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that both Sandstein and Ravpapa have a point. Unless there is something more to it. Of course Nableezy did not need to use the exact quote to make his point. - BorisG (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Boris, you should be site banned for your ad hominem attack on vegitarians. Trying to connect the only natural and wholesome way of eating with Hitler just illustrates the biased carnivorist agenda you and your contemptible partisans are here to promote. You know full well that the only RS basis for Hitler's purported vegitarianism is that once, when offered a chicken leg at a picnic, he supposedly said, "Nein, danke. Ich will einen Apfel essen." Yes, I know he also once said he thought schnitzel had given him gas, too, but he'd had seltzer with his meal. Anyway, you're obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, and I'll be taking this to AE.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that, with a 'sight ban' for Ohio Standard, who, in dropping his standards by writing 'vegitarian' instead of something more acceptable (vegetarian), deserves the same treatment. On an historical note, Hister (Nostradamus's spelling)'s schnitzel was a 'weenie' and his oratory was distinctly vagitarian. To be Candide, gentlemen, maintenant, il faut cultiver notre jardin.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I immediately require that an infinite block is applied to Nishidani :

• vegetable can be found in Israel and Palestine and he is topic-ban on these topics
• he refers to Candide, written by Voltaire, who is well known for his antisemitism.
• he is a sockpuppet of Amin al-Husayni : their pseudo sound similar !

Noisetier (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Smell a sock?

I'm a little confused about whether your topic ban has been officially modified as proposed above. If it has, can you help me root out a sock? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it will have to wait for tomorrow. nableezy - 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nableezy. If it isn't prohibited to you for some reason, I'd value the benefit of your very bright lights in this conversation re the striking upsurge in new accounts we've seen recently that are obviously run by experienced users. You too, Malik, if you're interested, provided it's understood that no administrative action of any kind whatever is being requested there against any individual account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued - amendment to your topic ban

I'm editing from mobile at the moment, and have limited wikitime until tomorrow. I'm sorry that I abruptly stopped contributing to our earlier disussion, but I haven't forgotten about my proposal, and I will implement it as discussed when I am next at a computer, which will be late tomorrow morning. The modification will require me to edit some lengthy and complex pages, to keep the relevant indexes up-to-date, and doing that on an iPhone sounds rather hellish to me. Thanks for your continued patience. Regards, AGK 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All good. nableezy - 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Restriction of your account is modified as follows

As discussed, your account is restricted as follows. This is a discretionary sanction under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and is subject to the usual enforcement and appeal procedures.

The existing restriction of Nableezy is vacated. In its place, on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Nableezy is prohibited from re-doing any change of his that is reverted by another user, unless he would be reverting with the consent of the other editor or the support of editorial consensus. Nableezy is not prohibited from reverting obvious vandalism, edits which violate the policy on biographies of living people, edits by anonymous users, or any change to non-article pages or pages not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This restriction will expire on 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC). Nableezy is instructed to pursue consensus for any change of his that is reverted, and to not engage in edit-warring in any form.

I have updated the appropriate pages with the new sanction. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need clarification about any practical aspect of this new sanction. Also, please ensure in future that you are duly professional and not again disruptive. Regards, AGK 22:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)