User talk:Nableezy

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.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Where can I find

a current list of users who are blocked or topic-banned? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ones logged as ARBPIA blocks/bans should be listed at WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans, though going through that to see which ones are still in effect may be a bit of a time-suck. The currently topic banned editors from ARBPIA2 (West Bank vs Judea and Samaria) are Nishidani, G-Dett, Pedrito, MeteorMaker, NoCal100/Canadian Monkey. Jay was banned but had his lifted on appeal some months back. I dont think there is a list of users currently banned, just a list of editors that have had some enforcement action taken against them. Sorry I cant be of more help. nableezy - 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AE#AgadaUrbanit

Hello Nableezy. It appears that AgadaUrbanit self-reverted his change regarding Gaza War. Is there still anything to do at AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats up to yall, though my outstanding concern is the game playing with the RFC, the I did not hear that type responses and the distortion of what the RFC was about. That, in my view, is more serious than any single revert. Whether or not it is mitigated by the self-revert is something that yall have to decide. nableezy - 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yeah, just one of those things I guess: sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

I don't know why it has to be so difficult for you to carry on a normal, civilized conversation with people.—Biosketch (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you really like an answer to this? nableezy - 16:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD participation

I was reading what you wrote about Michel Bacos AFD and I basically agree with you. Can I vote in these or is there some filtering criteria on who can vote in the AFDs? Poyani (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They call it "not voting" or "!vote", but yes, you may. Anybody, not just registered users, can voice an opinion. The typical format is *'''!vote''' - reason where "!vote" is usually either Keep, Delete, or Merge. nableezy - 18:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the pro-Israel crowd have been organizing votes here http://wikibias.com/ - is this okay as per wikipedia guidelines? It seems to bias the vote if you can organize and bring ideological friends like this. Poyani (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not, but there are sets of users here that have no problem violating the rules to suit their agenda. Not much can be done about it besides noting it in the AFD, which Ill do shortly (oops, somebody beat me to it). nableezy - 19:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibias

Did you know that your name appears in at least a dozen wikibias pages? There is at least one posting they have which is entirely devoted to you here http://wikibias.com/2010/10/who-edits-wikipedia-part-ii/ Just thought I should let you know. Poyani (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're nobody until you've been mentioned at Wikibias.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my best Smokey from Friday imitation, allow me to say "I dont give a fuck!!!" I dont give those people any page views, I saw the site once when it first came out and decided it was worth exactly 0% of my time. nableezy - 21:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I am taking the opposite approach. I am visiting the site so I know if they organize a vote. Poyani (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for spotting the "deliberate" mistake. That's the problem with reverting to an old version. I have to make sure it's the right old version. And thanks for the welcome back. If I set my contributions to listing 100 edits, itt goes back to the start of May which is I think a reasonable non-addicted level of contribution.

Apart from Ravpapa's proposal, all the contributions in the Nishidani Arbcom thread come from people whose !votes were predictable given whether they happen to agree or disagree with him. Does policy really say that ancient history and vague implcation is all you need to argue against someone in that place? At least with the Gilabrand case, there is recent evidence being produced.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know, its up to the arbs to decide what is important and whats not. Some of the comments were bullshit though, like ones saying Nishi has not created any content in the topic area. Off the top of my head, he is almost entirely responsible for the article Susya, which would be more complete if not for that fact that a sockpuppet tag-team, supported by the usual suspects, successfully drove him off that article when he, after spending a great deal of time and effort on the Jewish history of the settlement, turned his attention to the Palestinian history. There are countless other examples, examples that all of us are aware of. We'll see. I almost wish Ravpapa had chilled a bit before opening the request as I think it would have been wise to have worked on a draft amendment prior to presenting it to arbcom. nableezy - 23:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from interacting with Cptnono

Further to this request for enforcement, this message is to inform you that, for 6 months (until 27 December 2011), you are prohibited, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, from interacting with Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. You may not:

Edit any page within Cptnono's user or user talk space;
Reply to Cptnono in any discussion;
Make reference to or comment on Cptnono, directly or indirectly, on any page; or
Undo any edit by Cptnono to any page except your own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function).

In accordance with this restriction, you also may not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Cptnono. If you violate this restriction, your account may be blocked from editing by any administrator. If any aspect of this restriction is unclear, please feel free to contact me. AGK [•] 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. nableezy - 23:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem

Hello, I have posted some comments on the case page I would like you to review. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. nableezy - 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whats the most youve been banned for?

Chesdovi (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the question. The most meaning what is the worst thing I did to warrant a ban or most as in what is the longest ban I have had? nableezy - 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long? Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* 4 months. However, be aware that trying to argue that your ban is too long based on others bans will not go over well. AE admins have a lot of discretion, and there is no set formula for determining how long a topic ban should be. Different admins will often impose widely different ban lengths. For example, the very first time I was brought to AE I got a 4 month topic ban, later reduced to 2 months. I had not seen anything of that length for somebody with a relatively clean record (at the time I had I think 2 blocks for edit warring, one 12 hours one 24). But it was within "admin discretion". The discretionary sanctions allow for, in my view, too much of a variance in how topic bans are handed out. But I guess that is what discretionary means. nableezy - 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious actually. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full log of all ARBPIA bans: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, just in the case if anybody is not familiar with this page. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, his longest ban has been for 4 months but if you combine his bans, collectively, they add up to over a year. In addition to topic bans, he's been article banned on several occasions, restricted to 1r on other occasions, blocked several times, indef'd twice, has been issued interaction bans several times and has been the subject of a rather lengthy SPI where a radical pro-Palestinian sock puppeteer Cryptonio took up the slack for Nableezy and edited on his behalf on various occasions when he was topic banned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gytuu

I am guessing Gytuu is a sock puppet of the banned User:Captain Thoster based on how is racist editing of Gytuu style matches with that of the racist e-mails I have been receiving from Captain Thoster. Do you think that is enough to proceed with an SPI or should it go to A/E directly? I am not canvassing, I just have seen most of the vandalism and racism seems to be directed to you and I. -asad (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Returned. Also make a note there about the abusive emails, they can disable that accounts email access. nableezy - 20:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an SPI goes forward, I would wager to guess that the IP 132.216.129.105 might be behind all of it based on the similar style of insults and racism that I noticed when my user page was vandalized a few months back. -asad (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an SPI. See WP:LTA/Grawp. nableezy - 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your unconstructive edits at Talk:Hebron

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from Talk:Hebron. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Nezek (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]