User talk:Nableezy/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nableezy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Blocked indefinitely

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

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

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

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

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

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More detailed block reason

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

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

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

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

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

It does look like Nableezy tried (again) to "out" A and outing is ample grounds for an indef block, so I don't think it's overkill. Nableezy's not stupid and he knows how far he can push the rules without explicitly violating them, but you explicitly warned him a while back...He's the ability to be an asset to the project, but he also has a battleground mentality and will go to great lengths to eliminate an "opponent". [I will say that while I might not go as far as this administrator to say it was outing, I definitely agree with the point about pushing the boundaries being out of line. ~NW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of this block

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

1. What constitutes 'outting'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. In summary

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

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

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

I urge you to reconsider this ban.

Regards,

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

~~Well after reading the original post and Nableezy's above riposte, I know exactly which user he is talking about, and who he has indirectly "outed". Very clever, but still outing.~~ 93.91.196.124 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) - (Ledenierhomme sockpuppet. Blocked [1] Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smell a sock?

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

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

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

"I think that can't be right, but perhaps I'm mistaken, so I think some clarification is needed." The first part of the sentence, with its awkward phrasing, seems familiar, but I can't quite place it. Any thoughts? (Let me know if you'd like to know the source.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the source, but there isnt enough to go on yet. Im keeping an eye on it though. nableezy - 14:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued - amendment to your topic ban

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

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

Restriction of your account is modified as follows

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

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

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

Thank you, and Ill try. nableezy - 22:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find

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

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

Wikipedia:AE#AgadaUrbanit

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

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

Thanks

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

June 2011

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

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

AFD participation

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

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

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

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

Wikibias

Did you know that your name appears in at least a dozen wikibias pages? There is at least one posting they have which is entirely devoted to you here [link removed]. Just thought I should let you know. Poyani (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Your message

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

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

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

Banned from interacting with Cptnono

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem

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

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

whats the most youve been banned for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was banned for one year, but not because I added "al Nabi" to the Arabic transliteration in Joseph's tomb, because TC is not familiar with Arabic. Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. nableezy - 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon. Chesdovi (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Of all the edits brought to AE, the most serious was, in my opinion, the removal of the seal of Hebron and the replacing it with the seal of the settlers. Next was the edit to the picture caption, along with the edit summary. But the thing that did the most to get you banned was, in my opinion again, the opening of a complaint against asad done only in retaliation. I tried to tell you that would not end well, but you kept insisting on "punishment" for asad, and even admitted to bringing the complaint only because asad brought one against you. nableezy - 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I said. I was banned for everything, bar the "Al-Nabi" addition. The report by Asad was spurious and the points raised are extraordinary. I don't think the Hebron edit was that problematic in itself. All the others were just stupid. "Al-Nabi" is a non-starter. To complain about "re-adding" a biblical reference in Mount of Olives is just a joke. And Asad got hot under the collar about Ahava due to his limited knowledge of English language usage. I mean just look at what I've found: [2]! That's okay. It was my ill-advised angry response to Asad’s fluff of a report that really caused the problem. I should have incorporated his previous untapped violation in my response, but you never suggested it. Asad caused the “battleground” with such baseless claims, not me. He doesn't care about the validity of the ban. How do I know? Cause he does not even bother respond to my remarks after the ban was implemented. All of a sudden it becomes too long for him to read. What an annoying person, if I may say so. Chesdovi (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the word not above. Either that or misunderstood. Ah well. nableezy - 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And your wise view on Fortnum & Mason's please? Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you insist on digging your own grave on the top of your one-year ban? I have refrained from commenting because I don't want to add more fuel to your fire, but if you keep insisting on bringing this crap up and whining about me to contributers of the project I have no choice but to respond to your nonsense. Out of all people, I think you might be surprised to know that I would have supported an appeal to your topic ban given the basis that if you ever have a reason to take me to A/E you did it immediately rather than hold on to it in case you needed to use it as a weapon, but that is over now. You are making baseless attacks about my motives and personally attacking me by insinuating that I don't not know my mother tongue. You are only reinforcing Timothy Canens decision and Nableezy's assumption that you just don't know when to stop. If I were you, I would knock it off because next time I will seek other channels. Also, a bit of advice that goes against my better judgment -- if you want a successful appeal in the future, you better start taking responsibility for your editing practices that got you banned instead of blaming your entire situation on me. No admin will buy that for a second. -asad (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, to clear up your misunderstanding: this photo shows protesters occupying an Ahava store by the means of a sit-in, this photo shows protesters protesting outside an Ahava store. -asad (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And what does this photo show? Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You both seem lost for words. Then again, I am too. Have a great weekend everyone. Chesdovi (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a photo of protesters standing on top of the scaffolding of a department store in the UK. If there is some background context to the photo, I wouldn't know about it. If you are not pleased with the caption perhaps you should edit it. -asad (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Standing"? Don't you mean they're "occupying" the top of the scaffolding? I am totally fine with the caption: "Occupation of Fortnum & Mason during the anti-cuts protests" added by Grim23. You don't need to actually be in a building to "occupy" it. Standng outside in the foyer area in the fashion the code pink protestors did, or on the roof and pavement outside F&M as shown above, is also called occupation or occupying it. Chesdovi (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)