User talk:Nableezy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:01, 2 September 2010

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

Topic ban notification

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

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

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, as applied here, and which, in watching from the sidelines, I gather might have an impact on myself as someone sanctioned under them. That is a legitimate request, or query, not a violation of a topic ban. I like clarity, which is not a healthy thing to desire round here:) Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

topic ban

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

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

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

MeatpuppetsRUs

Wikibias (h-tt-p://wikibias.com : "Monitoring Wikipedia Bias Since 2010") - Wikipedia: A How-to guide (h-tt-p://wikibias.com/2010/08/wikipedia-a-how-to-guide/). Know anyone who accused someone of anti-Semitism and was threatened with being banned, but was able to rally a few supporters to keep the account active? ← ZScarpia 10:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) (Oh! ... I see you've been quoted in article A Conspiracy Theory That Just Won't Die [h-tt-p://wikibias.com/2010/08/a-conspiracy-theory-that-just-wont-die/])[reply]

I've just edited my previous comment to remove the links. When you click on a hyperlink to get to the Wikibias site, it looks as though the owner of the site gets a record of your IP address and the URL of the page you clicked the link on (that is, the Referrer, which, for links on this page would be h-tt-p://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy). That's an information combination which you probably don't want to give away. The same is true of the JIDF site. ← ZScarpia 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once more, one sighs 'alas' at what one is up against, retires to the armchair, reaches for Nietzsche's all too timely meditation on 'the uses and disadvantages of history for life' (Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen: Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie für das Leben) to browse over, and ponder on, his description of the herd mentality. Places governed by a number's racket reinforced by Raffety's rules give no solace for editors who edit as individuals.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Bite Anons

Regarding this:

Finally, for some reason I find it hard to believe that you do not have an account here. Please log in with that account.

I'm certain you are well aware of the Foundation's Privacy Policy that is, no one is required to register to use the project may remain anonymous. Therefore, unless you have some concrete evidence of sock-puppetry going on, a process I'm certain you're familiar with, please refrain from telling people they need to register an account. --WGFinley (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, where exactly has Nableezy told anyone they need to register an account? Nableezy told 79.181.9.231 that he found it hard to believe that he or she doesn't have an account, then requested him or her to log in using it. That is obviously not the same thing, though. In an area of the project as embattled as the IP one, it's far from unreasonable to suspect that anyone who's clearly an experienced editor and is editing under an IP address has nefarious reasons, such as evading a block or ban, for doing so. If 79.181.9.231 had a legitimate reason for editing under an IP address, it would have been good if he or she had given just a short explanation of the reasons why, just to put everyone's mind at rest. Note that IP addresses are actually less anonymous than user names which don't contain clues to editors' real identities. Scuse me for butting in. ← ZScarpia 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, people can edit anonymously, you shouldn't tell people not to unless you have clear evidence they're editing anonymously to circumvent blocks or are a sock. --WGFinley (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what I wrote violated any part of the WMF privacy policy. As ZScarpia pointed out, I did not say that anybody needs to register an account. However, you should be aware of a few things. The talk page of the Golan Heights page has been the target of more than one editor either banned or topic-banned from that article. You could look here or here for some of the users that have been socking at that article.
Now to your last point, that I should not tell people to log in with their main account without proof of sockpuppetry. The problem with that is I have seen CU's decline checks because linking an account with an IP address is supposedly a violation of the privacy policy (a reading of the policy that I disagree with), which effectively means that any user can get around a ban by editing only as an IP. This is obviously not an ideal situation, but it is one that is often taken advantage of. If it were up to me every single article in the topic area would be semi-protected. There are far too many IPs and "new users" that are just banned accounts. I realize Wikipedia and many people who edit this site have this stupid infatuation with the idea of being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but too many problems are caused by IPs and "new accounts" that are so clearly "evading scrutiny" (as the WP:SOCK policy says) that it is not worth the hassle. Finally, let me ask you a question. Do you really think this IP does not have an account that has edited in the topic area and is not editing as an IP solely to "evade scrutiny"? nableezy - 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may perhaps be a minor point, but there is a difference between telling somebody to do something ("Log in with that account"), as you seem to be suggesting that Nableezy did, and asking or requesting that somebody do something ("Please log in with that account"), as Nableezy actually did. ← ZScarpia 00:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you have information showing the anon is circumventing a bock or otherwise abusing anon editing then, by all means, forward the information confidentially. Otherwise looks like you're just picking on anons. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean evidence besides an anon whose very first edits are to a controversial article, who knows how to use edit summaries immediately, who understands wiki syntax such as using numbered lists in their first edit to a talk page? No, I dont have evidence besides that. nableezy - 06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous proof

Okay, I'm not very fond of Supreme Deliciousness contacting me on my page with "Ask nableezy to send you the evidence", but, regardless, I would have asked anyway when I read through the continuation of the AE thread. Yes, I would be interested in seeing the evidence you have. You can e-mail me via Special:EmailUser/Tariqabjotu. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you were annoyed, but I dont control SD's actions. Anyway, sent. nableezy - 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't blaming you. I just didn't want you to think I was asking for the evidence only because SD wanted me to. Anyway, I blocked Jiujitsuguy indefinitely, per the evidence. Not sure how/when you found this all out, but thanks for sharing it. -- tariqabjotu 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think my previous comment was an understatement. I blocked him after reading the first two links, but I decided to continue. And, I must say... wow. Again, thanks; this is really appalling, and your evidence was well thought out and substantiated. -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. nableezy - 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On ANI

Just so you know, there is a thread on WP:ANI that mentions you: WP:ANI#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six Day War

Why did you revert my edit on the Six Day War article? [1], unlike what you misleadingly claim that every time we mention the West Bank,, Jordanian-occupied is not mentioned everytime. This adds context since usually West Bank means something to do with Israel. --Luckymelon (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt revert the entire edit. You added "Jordanian occupied" to "West Bank" when discussing the attack on as-Samu. I left the first "Jordanian occupied" in there (though while Jordan did effectively "occupy" that territory it would be difficult to argue that Jordan was actually a "belligerent force" occupying the West Bank at the time, not nearly as clear cut as Israel's occupation of the WB and EJ). You wrote in your edit summary If Israeli-occupied is mentioned so should Jordanian occupied to be NPOV. My question to you is when the words East Jerusalem are mentioned in the article should it be preceded by "Israeli-occupied"? Multiple times in the article? When discussing the same thing as when it already says "Israeli-occupied"? nableezy - 04:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flotilla raid

I already told you I try not to take part in discussions on that article, though I contribute there from time to time. Maybe this discussion might interest you. And no, this is not a psy-war message. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not interested. Bye. nableezy - 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Is it customary to notify an editor that he is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation? If so, you should notify Drork's socks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI page says Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. nableezy - 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you moved my vote

Hi there. I noticed that you moved my vote here, 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. --DavidAppletree (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. nableezy - 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged collaborators

Why did you contest the prod? If you remove it, you should explain why. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will do at the talk page. nableezy - 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and done. nableezy - 23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

You said you know who it is [2], please ad your evidence here: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not think you were that stupid. Thanks for enlightening me. nableezy - 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 |}
 Your name has been mentioned in connection with a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sockpuppetry]] case. Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|the guide to responding to cases]] before editing the evidence page.  ''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]'' 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">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>