User talk:Nableezy/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Help request

Hi Nableezy. I realise you have a lot on your plate but if you have a couple of spare minuets could you explain how/where I apply to get my indefinite ban on editing Middle East related articles lifted (I'm currently 6 months + into an indefinite ban on editing in this subject aria). Thanks. Prunesqualer (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Prunesqualer. I'm not sure Nableezy can answer you right now, as he may be facing a ban of his own. You can go to WP:RFAR and file an arbitration case, but I think that would probably only be a waste of your time and theirs. (I haven't looked at any of your edits, so have no firm sense of whether your ban was justified.) The best thing to do might be to edit in another topic area for a while, demonstrate that you are capable of editing within Wikipedia norms, then after a month or so, appeal to the admin who topic-banned you. Admins can be very forgiving here, sometimes to a fault. Hope that helps. IronDuke 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You can appeal by either asking the banning admin or filing an appeal at AE. nableezy - 03:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@ IronDuke- You suggested that I: demonstrate myself to be "capable of editing within Wikipedia norms". Well on the basis of what I've witnessed I'm not sure I can manage the necessary level of hypocrisy in order to fit in with "Wiki norms" Prunesqualer (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean ; a lot of people get frustrated here. IronDuke 15:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Things like that are not going to help you. You need to dial it way down if you want to edit, if you dont youll just be wasting your time. nableezy - 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy You are right of course. I should try to emulate your more patient and diplomatic approach to dealing with the Kafkaesque world of Wiki A/I editing. PS I genuinely admire the work you do here, and hope you come through the current shenanigans in one piece (or at least, less bitter and twisted than myself). All the best Prunesqualer (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, I have wrongly been accused of sockpuppeting. You have a formidable reputation for being able to identify sockpuppets. Would it be possible for you to run me, and this suspected sockpuppet: Tovaroboyle [1] through whatever tests/processes you use to identify socks? I realise this is a big ask, and I will quite understand if you’re too busy or don't want to get involved in such a trivial matter. All the best Prunesqualer (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You could try going to WP:SPI and ask them to do it. IronDuke 15:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

@ IronDuke. I looked in on SPI as you suggested but non of the options seems appropriate for my case. Opening a full, formal, allegation of sockmastery case against myself just doesn’t seem right. Also, to be perfectly honest, I no longer have complete faith in the powers that be at Wiki (I'm sure most are honest and well intentioned people but I'm a little depleted in my trusting side just at the moment) Oh well, thanks for the advice anyway. Cheers Prunesqualer (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind emailing me? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All right. Though I just used the WP interface, in case that is a different address. nableezy - 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, please do not forward that information to users who are not CUs or SPI clerks. Thanks, nableezy - 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to know

Hi Nableezy, although we will never agree on some of the most important to us things, but I understand where you're coming from, and I hope you understand where I am coming from too. I do respect you (not anymore), although I was disappointed, when you started discussing emails hacked from my account that you believed to be my private emails. As I told in a few places at first I even thought that you were the hacker, and I am sorry about this (no longer sorry, users who discuss hacked emails are not any better than hackers) , Nableezy. I also told in a few places that I have never proxy-edited for any banned editor including NoCal. Over a period of one and a half year NoCal and me exchanged not more than 10 emails. Most emails were concerning their ban, and what should be done in order to bring them back as a contributor. I even contacted one, or more (cannot remember now) administrators on NoCal's behalf. I thought I contacted them via emails, and some of them I did, but I found something online too.Please see here. Does this look to you as a post made by an editor, who is going to proxy-edit for a banned user? Would I have made online admission that me and NoCal email each other, if I were proxy-editing for them? It hurts me you believed the hacker, but did not believe me. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What comments made by Nableezy, lead you to believe that there are specific statements made to him by a hacker, that he believes? And what are those statements?

Mbz1, you've told arbcom, Jimbo, and others, that your private email account was hacked, and that emails were "stolen" from it. But now you're saying that the emails that were "stolen" from it, were not actually your private emails? Something doesn't quite fit here... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, I dont believe anything you have to say. You have already admitted playing a "game" with NoCal to attempt to get me blocked for edit-warring at Egypt. The email, which you admitted was genuine in another email, includes NoCal telling you what to say on the talk page, which you promptly did. During this time, a NoCal sock also came to revert on Egypt. But yes, I understand where you are coming from. You feel a need to protect the tribe, to advance what you think is its interests. You do with this without understanding the actual issues, that is, you simply support whatever makes the tribe look good, or makes the opposing group look bad, without regard for facts. You collude with others, including multiple banned users, off-wiki to do this. Forgive me for saying this, I would have rather left it to myself, but what you have done makes it impossible for me to take anything you have to say as genuine. You are not going to convince me of anything here, so there is no need for you to reply. You are free to, of course, but consider anything you intend to say to me will fall on deaf ears, or blind eyes as the case may be. nableezy - 13:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I said what I wanted to say, and I'd say no more except repeating yet another time that no decent person , no person with a self-respect would discuss hacked emails that he believes to be private emails (they were not private emails because they were written for the hacker, to make the hacker to act on them). It is way too dirty. Last time, when I linked you to the hacker's IP blocked by Avi you archived the thread as a baby, who just lost his favorite toy. Now, when I have proved beyond any doubt what were my exchange with NoCal about once again I see the same kind of behavior. I no longer care, if you believe me or you do not instead I pity you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz, do you really think anyone buys the "we setup a fake trap for the hacker" shtick? Seriously? You got caught; admit it and move on. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicion concerning a possible sock

I suppose you noticed this? I see that account is now blocked, and it's not personally-identifying information anyway, but perhaps it can help a little in some related SPI. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm already on that one. The IP is dynamic. The account isn't exactly blocked. It's temp blocked pending a username change. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Issue_archived_apparently_before_being_resolved. I'm having somee trouble getting an admin to take action or say thyey won't. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sean. I did comment there; I think we should pull the archived thread back to the "live" AN/I page, if no response. I've done that once or twice before. But when will WP finally start doing automated checkuser/user-agent-testing in controversial areas? Seems like some days there are more socks than legitimate users. I suppose there are more-sophisticated tools that governments have access to that can defeat such testing (saw a U.S. DOD RFQ to build such a suite of tools recently, actually) but we ought to at least make it harder for Joe Average to sock than it is now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a new sockfarm operating. See my ANI report, and in particular the edits of User:46.38.162.18. Does this look at all reminiscent to you? If your sanctions p[reclude answering here, maybe you could email your thoughts to me. RolandR (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I cant get into the particulars, but I can suggest that you request semi-protection on a certain article due to long term persistent edit warring by IPs and sockpuppets. That should make things a bit easier to deal with. nableezy - 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI (and for the TPS) I've blocked this Slicehost proxy range:

• 46.38.161.41 (talk · contribs)
• 46.38.161.60 (talk · contribs)
• 46.38.161.251 (talk · contribs)
• 46.38.162.18 (talk · contribs)

I've also blocked the range of the IP mentioned at the top. Slicehost and cloud hosting seem to be popular with that sock with a beard, fwiw. I expect those two ANI accounts are now abandonded, but I also expect Tnxman will check out their proxies if they're ever used again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned from editing Palestine-Israel pages for 2 months

In connection with a complaint at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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" Wikipedia. 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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:Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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)