User talk:Nableezy/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Topic ban from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Nableezy, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby prohibited from making any edits to any page if the edits or the page relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, with the sole exceptions of defending yourself in any subsequent arbitration or arbitration enforcement proceedings, or reverting blatant vandalism. This sanction lasts for two months beginning 19:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC). Please refer to the AE request for a detailed rationale. You may appeal this sanction as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Nableezy, once again, I see that one side of the deabte is held to quite higher standard than that of the other. What can I say? I've seen so many a good editor get blocked and banned, while some from the other side, who should have been blocked long ago, run around carefree, that it makes me question just what the fuck I am doing here. After all, if I haven't been banned by now, it must mean I'm not a good editor - certainly not of the same calibre as you, Nishidani, Nickhh, Meteormaker, Pedrito, G-Dett, Ashley kennedy3, etc, etc.

If you want to challenge the decision, and I think you should, you can of course rely on me for moral support. I would not be surprised however, if you've simply had it. Such a ill-thought out decision does wonders towards discouraging someone from ever editing here again - which is quite likely the aim of it all. Fuck. I'm sorry. It's just not our world my friend. Not our time. Its really depressing actually. Last year New Year started with the annhilation of Gaza, and this year with the annhilation of a well-intentioned editor. No comparison of course, but its still just another reminder to me, at least, of how far we have to go before enjoying anything close to equality and justice. I know, melodrama, sorry. Its my Arab nature. Tiamut^talk 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, just human nature, and commonsense.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani. Seriously, I have tears in my eyes. The whole thing is really quite maddening. Tiamut^talk 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Tiamut, editors are not sanctioned (at least not by me) based on which "side" they are on, but only based on whether or not they have disrupted Wikipedia in a specific case, irrespective of whether others may or may not have also disrupted Wikipedia, or whether they were wrongly or justly also sanctioned or not sanctioned for it.  Sandstein  21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every admin says the same thing when they render such a decision. It seems the luck of the draw attracts all the conscientious admins more to one side of the debate, earlier on, than the other. I have no reason to doubt that you believe it to be true. I recall, however, once coming to you for help with a disruptive editor who was loosely throwing around the term "anti-Semitism" [1], since you had issued a warning to him previously for just that kind of behaviour. You declined to take any action, chalking it up to a content dispute. One month later, he was blocked for edit warring (peppered with incivility) at the same page where I thought he was being disruptive a month earlier, and then blocked indefinitely three days later. Perhaps I am comparing apples and oranges ... perhaps you were generous then because he was not really disruptive at the time ... perhaps Nableezy doesn't deserve any generosity? You are free to assert your even-handedness, but you must forgive me if I have my doubts. Tiamut^talk 21:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well son

I can't speak about what happened of course. That is now 8 good editors taken out, or retired from disgust, in one year. Champagne corks must be popping in some quarters, not only for the New Year. Nothing to do with the executive administrator. The rule is, you survive only if you complain, and you are destroyed if scruple and dignity make you refrain from playing the game your adversaries make. In wiki arbitration, you can make a mountain out of a molehill, and pulverize Everest so that it looks like William Blake's 'grain of sand', depending on the aleatory play of a number of factors. Well, that's it. A few more hours and I would have completed my draft of the Barasana page, finishing and posting the remaining 4 sections. No point to it. In fact, , , ,Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if I feel like making the slightest effort to improve this "encyclopedia" at the moment either. Sandstein now has information that he called "immaterial" because of a lack of diffs (one would think he would ask for the diffs before acting, but thats another matter), let's just see what he chooses to do with that information. But I think my time here may be coming to an abrupt end. I cant stand this shit. No need for replies, not really in the mood to see that yellow bar at the top of the page right now. nableezy - 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

not my finest hour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-enwikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Nableezy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am not asking for an unblock, I am only asking the autoblock be disabled as I have a shared IP address at work Decline reason: But you see, then that defeats the purpose of blocking for WP:NLT in the first place. Sockpuppetry much? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. What the fuck is wrong with you people? No, I have not engaged in sockpuppetry, and by enabling the autoblock you potentially block 3000 other people. I have no intention of ever editing Wikipedia again, a simple, straightforward request is made so that others can continue to edit this pretend encyclopedia and it is ignored. Wow, this is too dumb for words. nableezy - 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I used autoblock on purpose. Please tone down the rhetoric, you wanted to be blocked. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC) And what exactly was that purpose? nableezy - 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppetry much? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) No, I have not. nableezy - 23:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC) At any rate, if you believe that you're affecting 3000 people, by your own logic, you should be withdrawing that legal threat right here right now. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC) All right, I hereby retract any legal threats against Sandstein or anybody else and will just use the wikibreak enforcer instead. I cannot believe how difficult something this simple can be. nableezy - 23:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Autoblocks do not last forever, do not worry. I suggest you go back to working. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC) New Years day is a holiday in the United States, I was more concerned when I go in on Monday morning. nableezy - 23:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Well if you use your work computer to act out on a public web site then you are pretty much exposing yourself to these sorts of problems. If someone from your IP does try to edit while the autoblock is still in effect then they will be told the IP is blocked and it will refer to the reason the block was made. The internet is not a private place and your actions can be viewed by others, I suggest you keep that in mind when using websites in the future. I certainly hope that Nableezy is not a name your coworkers know you by. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I will however save you the suspense and let you know that the autoblock will have expired by Monday. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC) You miss my point, but no matter. I retract the legal threat and request my block, and autoblock, be lifted. nableezy - 23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Given the fact that you made that legal threat in an attempt to illicit a block I am not willing to reverse my block. You have been very disruptive. You can make another unblock request if you like and get a review by someone not involved with your block, but I think the intentionally disruptive nature of this incident goes beyond the legal threat itself. Perhaps a reduction to a finite duration would be more reasonable than an unblock. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC) All I wanted was a way to ensure that I would no longer be able to edit here. If you want to call that "very disruptive" go ahead. nableezy - 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC) If you don't want to edit here then why are you requesting an unblock? I already told you the autoblock will expire by Monday. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Stop editing, not stop watching. Id still look at my watchlist, presumably while at work, and each time I would do so the autoblock would be reset. nableezy - 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Not true. Reading Wikipedia and using your watchlist has no effect on the autoblock, and the block has no effect on you reading or using your watchlist. Regardless it is moot now. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I was under the impression that any time a blocked user logged in that IP would be autoblocked. nableezy - 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC) That's true. Take a break or edit something quietly now, thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, bye everybody. nableezy - 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|I retract any legal threats against Sandstein or anybody else on Wikipedia}}

Nableezy

Nableezy, please do not do this. You are like the only sane person here. Please dont go. If you want to take a break do that, and when you are ready come back but please do not leave for ever! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Shameful

This user was a very fine, upcoming editor of considerable promise, who, perhaps because of those qualities was mercilessly harassed, victimized, and driven to make one unguarded remark out of pure frustration, and fear that his block would inconvenience his fellow workers. He did little that could, in any human society, be considered troublesome. He did much to encourage disenchanted editors to renew their confidence in wikipedia as a project. Shameful, deeply shameful. For those who still read books, Melville's Billy Budd contains the moral.Nishidani (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats a lie, this user was an idiot who stupidly expected that fair play and transparency should rule. He should have instead been coordinating his moves with like-minded editors, creating countless sockpuppets, and relying on "sources" that no reasonable person would call "reliable". He should have played the game, and you can bet he would have "won" if he had. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks wouldn't have helped, but some core topics on en.Wikipedia are way slanted at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like you Gwen Gale. I've admired the way you handle a lot of things around here. But unfortunately, not all admins are like you. And socks did help to get User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:Meteormaker, User:Pedrito and User:Nickhh banned. I'm pretty sure there are still more of them around too. And they do help to contribute to the mess at many articles and frustrate many a good faith editor into leaving altogether. Sad, but true. Tiamut^talk 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Double standards rule wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Double standards? What are you basing that off of? I think you will find we treat all users who make legal threats in a consistent manner regardless of who they are. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what it is you are talking about. None of this is about your block of me. Kindly take this page off your watchlist. nableezy - 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it Nab. I have a paranoid reading of what occurred, but like all paranoid readings, it may just be true, but also may simply link dots that are there but can be linked in other ways, to show it was simply a cascade of coincidentals that took its own momentum. Administrators don't really know what is going on, and it is not part of their brief to know. They act according to their respective readings of whatever data comes their way. The damage is done. I'm tired of this place, which simply will not let people edit articles unless they devote a huge amount of their time to bickering, snooping for stuff to 'get' people, and letting themselves be tied up hand and foot in chronic wikilitigation. Give it a rest.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

True that, just need to break the habit of refreshing my watchlist every few minutes. nableezy - 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Tiamut^talk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel bad - in a way it's all my fault. If I hadn't posted on the Jonathan Cook AfD all those weeks ago, we wouldn't be here. Although, as we know, nor would NoCal and his buddy accounts have been outed. All actions have consequences that seep through eventually I guess, as Zhou Enlai noted of course when he supposedly said of the French Revolution, when asked about its impact - "it's too early to tell". --Nickhh (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel bad Nickhh. If anyone's at fault here, it's me, for filing an WP:AE request against Cptnono after he called me a "a dirty liar" and said I shouldn't be editing here because I have Palestinian stuff on my user page. That complaint led nowhere of course. And in short order, he filed two AE complaints against Nableezy's, the first of which led to the first imposition of a two-month topic ban, and the second of which, while declined, was followed up with a positive closure of Epeefleche's filing of another complaint against Nableezy for the edits to Cook AfD from a month ago with a renewal of the topic ban. Even though that complaint had already been ajudicated by tznkai as harmless. I'm so sorry Nableezy. Still feel guilty about it. I keep forgetting that the complaints process just isn't fair and will likely result in us being banned. I don't know how I could forget that given what happened to nickhh, nishidani, et al., but I guess my naive hope in justice springs eternal. Tiamut^talk 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll impose the severest sanction I can think of on all of you to get you to leave this place for a while, for your own good health. No one listens to people who complain, especially when their complaint is legitimate. One has to confide in the good offices of passing Samaritans, for an eventual remedy. I suggested to others to read Billy Budd. Both of you should (re)read it, and then Strindberg's 'Dance of Death' (Dödsdansen) before even thinking of checking out these pages again. It should take a few days, is conducive to not smoking, since they are both gripping, and, once one gets that habit, wikipedia seems less interesting as a distractive read. Then Moby Dick, but purely for the huge comedy. Alternatively for Tiamut, Patrick White's 'Chariots of Fire', if she can find a copy in her part of the world. Laughing makes one's jaws incapable of dragging on any noxious weed. I myself have undertaken to reread Grimm's fairy tales. I need to soak myself in real horror, and not the virtual macabre of wikidramas. Best to you all for 2010 (we shouldn't have exchanged NY wishes of AK's page. It must have looked like a conspiracy of a 'fray of fools' (to use a phrase I read in a recent edit summary) and galvanized the molecular logic of paranoidal forces into remedial action!Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"No one listens to people who complain, especially when their complaint is legitimate. One has to confide in the good offices of passing Samaritans, for an eventual remedy.".

Completely true. But there are solutions. Look at the way an excellent editor such as SlimVirgin succeeds in writing articles and lead them to FA status despite the "sitution"... I still cannot understand how she did with 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla and Muhammad al-Durrah incident !!

I still wonder what is the recipe...

Ceedjee (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well my friends ... I tried to stay retired in solidarity over this piss poor decision. But I couldn't help it, I had to come back to editing, after seeing what kind of POV pushing was taking place in our collective absence. I'm still outraged and thinking of filing a formal appeal. Though I'm not sure what good it will do given how broken the checking process is once someone's name has been blackened by an admin too stubborn to admit his error.

Ceedjee, don't be too sure that SlimVirgin will have any success getting the articles you mentioned up to FA status. There are too many reviewers with a strong POV of their own that they have serious difficulty checking at the door and she's already garnered one strong oppose. Still, she does manage to improve many articles. I think you can chalk part of it up to dogged perservance. Some of the other factors are perhaps better left unsaid. Tiamut^talk 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

After things calm down, I hope you reconsider your retirement. Although you and I have had differing viewpoints on some articles, I have always appreciated your input and contributions to article discussions. Regards, --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, but thanks for the kind words and take care. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm bummed

Nothing more to say, really. You'll be missed. IronDuke 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You get Sandstein to admit that his decision was retarded, and he has to use that word, Ill come back. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of Sandstein’s ban, I can tell you that in my experience with administrators I’ve had bad interactions with, their willingness to admit error is very, very low. There’s really nothing to be done about it. Quitting is always an option, and entirely understandable, but… it’s your wiki-funeral, but I can’t see the harm in just taking a break and then in a week or so reassessing your feelings after that time. IronDuke 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban is not the issue, it is the resistance after having the rest of the information in front of him to admitting the mistake. He originally said that the two month ban is in order because I "repeatedly" commented at an AfD that was covered under my topic ban. After been given the evidence that AfDs were to be treated as talk pages he now cites two diffs of me restoring other users comments with requests that people go to AE instead of enforcing arbitration decisions themselves as evidence of disruption and violating the topic ban. Yes, it is a technical breach, but I, purposely, did not actually make any comment about the AfD until my talk page ban expired, I just had a problem with highly involved users thinking that they are in a position to enforce an arbitration decision. I just dont want to be involved in a place where people who are supposedly reasonable and respectable play these games. If he had, after getting the diffs he had requested, brought it down to a 1 week topic ban, or even a block, or whatever, fine. But his insistence that the original sanction is appropriate when it clearly is not is what made me decide to be done. I cant do it anymore, I just do not have the will to deal with the typical bullshit and on top of that the bullshit from AE. Do you know that I was taken to AE for reverting an edit that said that the PLO was founded on Mars and another one where the edit summary was something along the lines of "no one believes in your Jewish BS about Holocaust"? What the fuck is wrong with people here, just say thanks for reverting that crap and be on your merry way. But no, anything to attack somebody from the other side. And anyways, I was smoking entirely too much weed trying to deal with this shit, I need to save some money so I need to stop being so aggravated. nableezy - 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to give this a proper reply, but I'm running out the door. Not that you're dying for my response, but I'll have one tomorrow night in any case. IronDuke 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like Sandstein is not going to reconsider, and is advising that you appeal if you want more feedback/action. I'd say that's decent advice. I'm not sure what retiring does for you, really, other than the obvious -- I doubt it hurts Sandstein. I recall a phrase/axiom/truism, paraphrasing from memory, "Feeling resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies of it." Even if one were to stipulate that Sandstein was dead wrong, not a shred of rightness in his decision, well... that's an everyday occurrence here, isn't it? Look at the WB/JS decision: extraordinarily, unapologetically draconian and out of scale. But, I feel, that will likely going to get righted eventually. It's frustrating enough to quit over, but who's the loser thereby? IronDuke 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I did see that Mars thing, and I'll say this about that. Both sides are guilty of using wiki procedures to punish and silence those with whom they disagree (and IMO/E, the P side is guiltier). It's really, really unfortunate, and needs to stop. I don't know how to make that happen, other than to just keep saying it. IronDuke 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not "retiring" (what a stupid way to say quitting) to hurt Sandstein or anybody else. I just drove back from Chicago to the land of cheese and while I was driving a song that I had not heard in years came on. The lines that made me think about this were

It's issues I need to address/Pertaining the certain statements that made me confess/Faced with life, it bites when reality hit/And wit crime come a lot of technicality shit/Thru many co-defendants conspiracies linking/Like the court system designed to keep the mind from thinking

So much about this place is based on lawyering your way through a maze of rules and procedures that in the end the result often resembles a collection of propaganda rather than an encyclopedia article. So much energy is wasted on bullshit that has nothing to do with producing a quality reference on any topic. Designed to keep the mind from thinking is an apt way of describing this place. I dont want to deal with the technicality shit anymore. And of course it does not hurt Sandstein, in fact the people who could possible be "hurt" by this are the ones that have to deal with more bullshit on their own. I dont particularly like leaving Tiamut to deal with those who I cannot describe with civil language. And that alone may one day drive me back here, but as it stands I cant do it anymore. But anyways ID, it was nice exchanging words with you when we happened to run into one another. Take care, and in the words of the immortal Tony Montana, say goodbye to the bad guy, cause you aint never gonna see another bad guy like me. nableezy - 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of a Jadakiss line, **as think they Scarface but they aint seen the end of the movie

Another request to reconsider.

I think when the initial topic ban was imposed, I asked you not to quit. I do so again.

As far as I understand things, Sandstein's action does strike me as approaching the beginning of a wheel waw given that another admin had come to a different decision on the same matter. But that is done unless another admin cares to get involved.

On another matter, I was disappointed with the initial arb response to your proposal to lift the permanent topic bans. I've tried suggesting making it a one year ban with various rules about automatic extensions incorporated. As worded JayJG would have his ban lifted before Nish's runs down but I can't think of a better way to put things.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck

It was the first thing that came to mind. I was just getting over the Trevor Linden retirement and now this. I'd like to ask you to stay but it would probably be more for my benefit than yours. And for Tiamut and IronDuke and everyone else. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop watching that crap, it isnt good for you. nableezy - 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your I-P conflict topic ban] through your edits to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  06:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What? I am not allowed to present evidence that a user is engaged in sockpuppetry? nableezy - 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like any reasonable person to say exactly how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100 falls within the scope of an I/P topic ban.

Decline reason:

Per Sandstein. Please note that further abuse of this template will result in removal of your talk page access. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admin: this block is an arbitration enforcement action and may not be undone except through consensus at WP:AE. The topic ban was violated because the edits concerned supposed sockpuppetry in the I-P conflict topic area; see the recent clarification concerning the scope of topic bans at [2].  Sandstein  06:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but I can't see any reference in that clarification to reporting suspected sockpuppetry. And I see that Nableezy's block ban included an exception for "reverting blatant vandalism"; surely reporting suspected sockpuppetry is covered by this? RolandR 11:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha. You know what Sandstein, I may just take you up on that offer to review your initial ludicrous topic ban, just so you cant make even more ludicrous decisions. nableezy - 06:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Further abuse? I posted one unblock message and that is abuse? My confidence in admins as a group is soaring to new heights. nableezy - 07:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

worth it. nableezy - 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Appealing the piss poor decisions made

Hi Nableezy,

I know you posted to Sandstein's talk page saying that people should not spend any more time discussing you ban, but that was before Sandstein's latest baseless block was placed, and from your comments above, I have reason to believe that you might like to appeal his decisions. I have asked User:Gatoclass for some advice on how to do this, because s/he is an admin with some knowledge of your previous topic ban and someone whom I have found to helpful and fair in the past, though we have not always agreed on everything. I hope you don't mind my doing that, but I would like to hear from you here regarding whether you would like to come out of retirement to do this, because few admins or editors will be interested in looking into this issue if you are not going to come back. I hope you will consider this carefully and that you will give me the okay. I don't believe that admins should be allowed to act with impunity and get away with it simply because the people affected by their abuse of the tools are too angry/hurt to continue. But that's often what happens if those affected do not stick around to speak up about it, calmly of course, which is difficult when one has been done wrong by. My deepest regards, Tiamut^talk 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, and I say this with love and respect, but slow down a bit. If something is going to be done about this I will do it. I just need to think about a few things, but not today. Ive had a pleasant, peaceful day and that hopefully will continue for a while longer. There is no real urgency here, so Ima get back to watching the Bulls game. Find something enjoyable to do for a while and take your mind off of this. And, if you dont mind, thank G-dett for making me laugh a few times. Sandstein too, though those may be an unintentional form of comedy. nableezy - 01:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't get a chance to reply to you last night before the section disappeared, but it's been a pleasure working with/against you, I hope you come back, and I think you're doing the right thing right now (and by that I most certainly do not mean rooting for the Bulls). IronDuke 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And so my pleasant night came to an end as my cousin Vinny was busily reading How to respond to halftime adjustments, special high-school coaches edition. nableezy - 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lolled. Well, at least you can comfort yourself with the thought that Lovie Smith will be back for another year (though you seem, sadly, to have missed out on the Matt Millen sweepstakes). IronDuke 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Im ok with that, I think Lovie can be a good coach. But Turner and anybody involved with the offense over the last couple of years had to go. And sorry for removing the section, there was an admission in there that any curious passer-by from a certain autoblocked IP may have made an issue about. nableezy - 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't like bans for anyone who is very much good-faith, such as Nableezy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you are taking this all in stride Nableezy. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun. Sometimes I open my mouth (or let my fingers run) without thinking things through. Of course I'll respect however it is that you want to proceed. Enjoy your break. Tiamut^talk 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No apologies needed from you, ever. nableezy - 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, here's another sorry, for sidetracking the issues at your appeal by being overzealous in contacting interested editors, and in posting too much there about unrelated subjects. I won't post again tonight. And I will try not to post again tomorrow and the next day. I was just so happy that you decided to file an appeal and my generally obsessive-compulsive self got the better of me. I'm going to be visiting my sister abroad for the next couple of weeks, so my internet time will be restricted anyway. Please check User:Tiamut/Sandstein's ban of Nableezy for useful links should you need them. Good night Nableezy. Here's hoping for the best. Tiamut^talk 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fishy

This looks very fishy to me. Did Sandstein block Nableezy based on a topic ban that Sandstein created all by himself a few days ago? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For a brief rundown of what has been happening, see User talk:Gatoclass#Request for advice. Tiamut^talk 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole business looks very strange indeed; and the threat to inpose further sanctions for having the temerity to appeal this flawed ban is quite outrageous. I regret (though I can understand) your decision to retire from Wikipedia, and I entreat you to reconsider. In any case, even if you are resolute in your decision, I urge you to appeal against Sandstein's behaviour and decisions, in order to establish that these were unacceptable, and to prevent them from forming an unfortunate precedent. RolandR (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely with RolandR. (I know this isn't an RfC, but that comment was too good to pass up without a hearty second.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<- Nableezy, people quite often die soon after they retire. It causes diseases or something. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy. I think it would be good to reconsider the retirement idea. Your reputation is clearly not in tatters. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban lifted

Nableezy, in view of the discussion concerning your appeal at WP:AE, your topic ban from subjects related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is lifted, in the sincere hope that you will not engage in conduct that makes any new sanctions necessary. Regards,  Sandstein  18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nableezy. I'm glad to read the above. What I found most encouraging about the whole affair was that a couple of pro-Israeli editors supported your appeal. I know that you've done some joint article development with at least one of them. I suggest looking at doing more of the same. I dip in and out of the I-P business - currently I'm in the middle of "friendly" exchanges with a reresentative (I think singular is correct despite the multiple IPs) of the Jewish Internet Defense Force at the article talk page; I also have just had to report an apolgist for David Irving at ANI, but I try to keep most of my Wiki activity away from areas of conflict. I've got an article I created at WP:GAN and another will go to WP:FLC as soon as I'm back from my weekend away. I also do a certain amount of vandal reversion. I sometimes express irritation with certain types, but I've never had admin action taken against me. I think being seen to largely contribute to non-battleground areas helps keep the admins sweet.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Back

tollhouse cookies

But now you're going to have to be extra careful to be on your best behaviour. So just remember what happened to Sonny Corleone and that famous temper of his. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, have some Tollhouse cookies :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you join us again when you feel refreshed and ready. -Pecoc (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

the result is yet another example of rampant anti-israel bias and affirmative action tokenism. good luck in your new role as Ed Deline in Las Vegas the tv series. nice work here by the way. suggest you wear a NicoDerm patch all the time rather than have a cookie. the company HQ happens to be in the same place as 12.54.125.181. how ironic. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the ban was lifted. When you decide to come back you maybe should think about cutting down on wikiepdia, maybe 1 hour each day, and then don't think about Wikipedia for the rest of the day. It keeps the mind calm instead of getting frustrated by constantly follow everything by pressing the watchlist 500 times every day. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)