User talk:Nableezy/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Good close

Good close at COIN.[1] Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

EEML

I had to mention EEML because it's the reason I recused. It's not proper for me to file a request without disclosing. There is heavy overlap between the people involved in this dispute and EEML, and the type of dispute is identical: falsifying history in Eastern Europe for nationalistic ends. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I didnt mean you in particular, but EEML appears several times in COIN, several more times in the comments of the case request, and is seemingly used as a cudgel whenever convenient to imply some nefarious coordination in the present tense. And that shouldnt continue IMO. nableezy - 15:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thank you for stepping in. You’re one of very few who had the credibility to do what you did. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but :)

Thank you for your explanation there. I'll reply here since I think taking in the unwieldy ArbCom section is cumbersome.

You say in your close that " But removing an article that covers their actions in our article space is a COI by the consensus of this discussion." and later in your linked explanation "Which is why I did not find any COI for the actual topic, only on coverage of your edits related to it." Let me try to understand and clarify this. Nowhere on Wikipedia was the source used, AFAIK, to discuss my edits (right now I forget it at some point I was quoted in the capacity of the interviewee saying that the Warsaw incident was not a hoax but a fringe theory; if I was I have no particular concern regarding such an attributed quotation). So I'd like to clarify here - were you under impression that the source was used somewhere to discuss me, as a BLP, and I removed it for that reason? Let me link to the diffs of my edits from COIN, and note that the content I removed did not mention me: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. You can see for yourself that none of these edits are about myself. My understanding of the COI aspect is that a source I removed several times, the Haaretz article, does mention me in its body. But the content I removed from Wikipedia did not mention me. Do let me know if I am missing or misunderstanding something here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think removing the Haaretz article in article space is covered under coverage of your edits. I dont think the discussion supports that you have a COI on the continued editing of the wider topic, but on Wikipedia's coverage of it, citing this source, you do is what I think the discussion finds consensus for. nableezy - 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that I should not remove this particular source because I am mentioned in it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Im saying a consensus found that at COIN. But mentioned is a downplaying a bit, isnt it? It discusses your edits quite a bit, it also quotes you. But all I am saying is that in my view there was a consensus at COIN that you and other users whose edits are discussed in the Haaretz source, by username, have a COIN in removing that source. But to give a hypothetical, lets say that the NYT writes an article on pervasive anti-Israel editing in Wikipedia. And in that article they say Palestinian editor Nableezy has promoted terrorism and antisemitism throughout the website. Now I know that is not true, it is demonstrably false on multiple counts (the first being I am not Palestinian), but if the discussion at COIN were about me and editing material in the article Criticism of Wikipedia that cites this supposed NYT article, Id expect the same type of close saying I have a COI there. Would I expect a close saying I have a COI on the wider Arab-Israeli topic area? No, that was the slippery slope bit. nableezy - 15:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I actually agree with this. Note that I am fine with community analysis, which is why I support RfCs instead of edit warring. My concern is what to do when such source is used on Wikipedia, as I feel it enables harassment of my person. What level of protection do we offer to our members? Can I expect the community to offer me some help here, or is my skin not thick enough? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats a difficult question honestly. We both know that there is somebody who has indeed harassed you, and that may well have been his motive in pushing for this story to be published. But ultimately this is still an encyclopedia and not a social media site in which the feelings of our members count for more, or even as much as, our articles. The usage of this source needs to be decided based on our content policies. WP:Harassment is about user conduct, not article content. Lets say Donald Trump were a Wikipedia editor, could he claim that sources that discuss him negatively may not be used because they are contributing to harassment? A bit of an absurd analogy I know, but just to demonstrate the larger point. The usage of this source needs to be settled with our normal content policies. Im sorry that its use is very much in keeping with the aim of a banned editor, but I just dont see that as a relevant factor here. I am sorry that it contributes to a feeling of being harassed by you or any other person, but again, I dont think that is a relevant factor for our article content. nableezy - 16:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Difficult questions sometimes have no good answers, and I understand it. Thanks for trying to close this difficult case and politely explaining why you did it the way you did. I am not sure I fully agree with your analysis of all arguments in the close, but it is well thought out, and I'll respect it - and I also realize we are all volunteers here, and it's not like reading and closing such discussions is "fun". In the end, if I were in your shoes I might have made the same ruling. The good of the project, the good of the community, the good of the editors directly involved - they cannot always be perfectly aligned, and sometimes one has to give. It wouldn't be the first time for me to take the bullet and grow a thicker skin, I guess. I am sure Icewhiz would love for me to retire, but it won't happen yet.

You also said that we should not allow ancient history to drag behind people for too long - but we do. We already did years ago when I wrote my mini-essays on mud sticking. This just goes to show that best practices are sadly rare, on many levels. And WP:FORGIVE is sadly, pretty forgotten by many.

Anyway, Merry XMAS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and yours too Piotrus, I sincerely wish you all the best. nableezy - 23:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Thanks for your personal attack at User talk:Buidhe. I thrive on such feedback because it tells me that I’m on the right track. Could you tell me why you have an announcement of support for Hezbollah and an endorsement of violence on your user page? This is not collegial, and it goes against the result of a community discussion prohibiting such user boxes. It’s pushing the edge of the envelope. In addition can you tell me how you came to be aware of the COIN thread that you closed after I filed my request for arbitration? You announced that you were unaware of the request for arbitration. I assume good faith, that you were telling the truth, but it would really help if you told me whether someone drew your attention to that thread, or how else you suddenly found it. When did you first become aware of it during the 18 days it sat there waiting for closure? Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

lol. I was already aware of the COIN thread seeing as COIN is on my watchlist, and had watched the discussion unfold over time. I saw the updated comment on the closure request page. I did not say I was unaware of the RFAR, I said I was unaware that CaptainEek had volunteered to have ArbCom close the thread. Do you forget thanking me for that close lol? Do you forget saying, on this page, that I was one of the few with the credibility to make that close? Or do you take anybody questioning your judgment in coordinating with a banned editor and proxying on his behalf as reason to flip and start wildly flailing about searching for a way to attack your new target? What brought you to a twenty day old section on Buidhe's talk page? Why did you characterize a polite request as intimidation? The word Hezbollah appears nowhere on my user page, and that specific user box has been discussed several times, including when a user nominated the page for deletion, making your asinine claim that it goes against the result of any community discussion just that, asinine. Again, youre not as good as you think you are at this. If you want to answer my questions, these or the ones I asked here feel free. If you are here cus you think somehow Im going to cower in your presence, well, like Beyonce said, you must not know bout me. nableezy - 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I have been long aware of your editorial views, but only looked at your user page more recently. Your user page says, "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." That statement links to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah_userbox which suggests that "other parties" includes Israeli Jews, the stated enemy of Hezbollah, an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews, even civilians. Do you think it wise for somebody like yourself to get involved closing discussions about the systematic murder of Jews, seeing how your user page supports violence against Jews? Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech. It's a platform for writing an encyclopedia cooperatively. Statements like yours go against the stated purpose of Wikipedia. You're entitled to your personal beliefs, and you are entitled to speak your mind on any website that welcomes personal opinions, but would you please consider removing this patently offensive userpage content from Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I am going to give you a bit to retract the incredibly offensive claim that my user page supports violence against Jews. That is obscene, and if you do not retract it, very soon, I will be asking that you be blocked for it. nableezy - 16:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I accept your representation that you don't support violence against Jews (or hopefully anyone). I have struck my statement, assuming good faith, but I expect you to clarify your userpage accordingly, because your userpage makes me feel seriously uncomfortable working with you in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont give a fuck what you feel. No is my answer to your request. If you lack the reading comprehension to understand due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable is a statement criticizing Wikipedia for systemic bias, or that "all parties" means "all parties", or that "aggression" is a war crime, or that "violently resisting foreign occupation" is repeatedly recognized as a fundamental right in international law, then I feel seriously uncomfortable with you having a sysop flag on this project. No, I will not be modifying my user page, except possibly to include a diff to an admin saying I support violence against Jews because they dont understand words good. nableezy - 17:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, has it occurred to you that other editors might feel uncomfortable dealing with you? For instance, anybody remembering your bids to be elected to the Arbitration Committee in 2008 and 2009 might suspect that your integrity is not of the highest.[11][12] Anybody remembering the RFC on the statement about its capital status in the article on Jerusalem might think that your comments altogether skirted policy issues such as neutrality.[13]

Editing in the ARBPIA area, editors such as Nableezy must rub along with others who support or apologise for the occupation, settlement and establishment of an ethnically-discriminatory state on as much of the territory as possible that a gross sense of ownership says that there's entitlement to. Violent means were used to achieve those ends, including terrorism by the Revisionist Zionist ancestors of today's regime such as Menachem Begin (Fascist leaser of the Irgun) and Yitzhak Shamir (ultra-Fascist co-leader of the Lehi/Stern Gang).

Perhaps, in condescending to "accept [Nableezy's] representation that [he] [doesn't] support violence", you might like to offer your assurances in return that you don't operate a double-standard of accptable and unacceptable violence?

    ←   ZScarpia   00:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

He retracted it entirely and apologized below, no need to pile on, and I actually dont remember his voting in that RFC at all, or running in either AC election, the first being before my time here. nableezy - 01:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m speechless..So sorry Nableezy, I trust you have a thick skin. I asked ArBCom to witness this dialogue. [14] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"I expect you to clarify your userpage accordingly..." What a nasty, strutting little martinet. I don't know you put up with it.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Dan, youve been dearly missed. Merry Christmas to you and yours, nableezy - 17:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, I accept your explanation that I've misread your page. I encourage you to somehow clarify it so that others wouldn't misread it either. I also apologize. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is already clear, but thank you for retracting your accusation. nableezy - 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

International law is far more complex than we think, particularly in the wake of the precedents set by the US after 2001. Hezbollah, like Hamas, but unlike Israel in de facto practice, is held strictly to the provisions in international law that killing civilians in an armed conflict violates the Geneva Conventions. Nableezy's point nonetheless is not controversial. Israel's unprovoked 1982 Lebanon War, engaged when a ceasefire had been in effect for 8 months, broke international law, and 17,000 lives, mostly civilian. Hezbollah's border raids in 2006, though murkier in terms of who began what, employed at one point rockets fired at kibbutzes and in doing so, likewise violated international law.

Reading his statement as anything near to approval of, or incitement to kill, Jews, Israeli or not, is a failure to grasp Nableezy's whole record. He is not ideological: he is a wiki policy wonk with a notable nutcrushing (damn him) mastery of precedent and detail which the lout has regularly used to make me, for one, look like an uninformed fool (and I am by popular prejudice out there in the darker side of the net thought to be in cahoots with him and other putative 'anti-Israel' 'antisemites' - the usual bullshit), and, like it or not, his affirmation is one that reflects what Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, and dozens of other scholars, have argued.

Chomsky, who has been a vocal critic of many of Hezbollah's positions, said that he believes Hezbollah "has the right" to fight aggression.

Finkelstein has defended Hamas violence against the Jewish state, saying: “Now, under international law, Hamas, the Palestinians – nothing in international law debars them from using armed force to end the occupation.... For me that’s not an important question. Legally, they have the right. Morally, in my opinion, they have the right.”

He doesn't need to clarify anything. This was discussed and binned long ago.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the userbox is not about Hezbollah, it is about Wikipedia. It is about Wikipedia disallowing statements of support for one side of an armed conflict while explicitly allowing statements of support for the other. The editors who pushed for such a hypocritical, in my view, decision, are the other partiessubject in that userbox, and the reason it links to an internal WP dispute is because it is about internal WP politics. nableezy - 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've long had a generally positive view of Nableezy. This incident leaves me feeling that I should probably take a break. Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Most editors of longstanding have their moments, not least me. Work here on some of these extremely complex conflict/nationalism-related would task the patience of even the most diligently careful editor. We've all long experience here, marred by occasional fuckups, and we sort things out, don't make things personal, don't bear grievances with long memories, and move on. Seasonal greetings by the way. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Userboxes nearly always get scrutinised. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So it's sensible of me, for one, not to have them (another lurk to escape scrutiny:)Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, does this mean you no longer think I should not have closed the COIN? Or do you still think there was something improper there? What was the reason for you to go from thanking me for closing it to accusing me, well Im not sure what you are accusing me of with respect to that close actually. If you are thinking improper coordination, I assure you I have not communicated with anybody off-site regarding the COIN thread, the Holocaust in Poland topic area, the Warsaw concentration camp, or any other thing involved in that discussion. If you think that having previously been a target of Icewhiz makes me unsuitable to close that thread say so and I will undo the close. nableezy - 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you did a good job and have generally done a good job. I have no complaints and am sorry that I lost perspective. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for the I dont give a fuck about your feelings comment. But in my defense, you basically said I advocated for the murder of Jewish civilians, and that left me in a bit of a rage. nableezy - 18:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No apology needed. You’re very kind to let it go and I respect you greatly for your words of reconcilition. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguate user page

Though there's near zero chance of getting it wrong, you may want to disambiguate Ron Suskind's statement on User:Nableezy to Omar Suleiman (politician) for quicker browsing. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, did not realize that got moved in October. nableezy - 14:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your sharp wit and pleasant irreverence. Jehochman Talk 01:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dont think Ive been called pleasant before, but thank you. nableezy - 03:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy 'pleasant'? Jeezus, that really is offensive. Age does terrible things to us all - we grow soft (in the head). Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s all relative. I spend my days working on lawsuits. Some of them are a whole new level of obnoxious, much of it dull or unoriginal. I find sharp wits amusing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Re ECP

How are we approaching this? Say we put up an RFC on JC (limited to certain areas including Is/Pal), do we say upfront, non ecp, you cannot participate, etc or do we allow participation and ask the closer to determine if their contributions will stand as part of their close? Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You can enforce it yourself but If someone will challenge it the proper way is to ask at WP:AE or WP:AN Shrike (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not enthusiastic about the RFC opener laying down the rule, another might be to let it run as normal and see how things progress before raising up the issue for discussion then or later. Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you mind if I remove my comment here? I may have spoken to quickly and would like to reconsider my position. JBchrch talk 23:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Do yo thang. nableezy - 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Slippery slopes and other slights

Re: this - all policy applies under certain circumstances - in a certain context - and when discussing policy this should a main drive. For example, unrestricted gun ownership makes perfect sense where policing is lacking, but zero sense where gun ownership itself is the main source of trouble. Similarly, the argument of "sources creating interests to conflict editors" only makes sense when that's an actual problem; the only concrete discussion taking place ATM is about editors potentially acting against legitimate COIs. More broadly, "slippery slope" arguments aren't much without evidence, and if such exists then we can always work together to mitigate both our concerns, rather than failing one for fear of the other. François Robere (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand what youre saying here, policy of course applies, always. I just dont buy the argument that if a Wikipedia user expresses an opinion off-site that creates a COI. Especially if a Wikipedia user responds as that Wikipedia user in the same forum as criticism against him was leveled. That doesnt create a significant controversy or dispute and certainly does not make one an avowed rival and find suggestions otherwise to be abjectly silly. And I find absurd suggestions such as this to be indicative of the player vs player bullshit that I had previously found so annoying, made only more annoying by the willingness to just ctrl-f a user's name and throw out wild accusations because somebody didnt actually read the result. Obviously my close is related to that discussion as it stood, but what I said was unless and until we start slipping down that slope, and in my view this is a fairly clear display of slippage. I understand you think there is a COI with Grabowski, but even if it were true, I find the idea that a user cannot comment about a book because it is edited by some person who they published a response to in a newspaper to be so incredibly idiotic that I dont know how somebody can make that suggestion in good faith. And oh, even if there were a COI, WP:COI says to not edit the articles directly, not that they cannot participate in discussions. Which makes the invocation of a COI here even sillier. Did I mention how silly I thought it already was? nableezy - 20:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your position that there's no COI is reasonable and I don't object to it as such, though I do disagree with it; the problem I'm posing is with the other part of the argument - the so-called "slippery slope". This is mere fiction: an unlikely and unprecedented hypothetical, which shouldn't stop us from addressing a concrete problem one way or the other. This being factored into several editors' considerations seems to mirror how "real world" policies are often decided: not by evidence - whether empirical or probabilistic - but by imagination and emotion. François Robere (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, yes - Ctrl+F is silly. Serious people use regex.[15] François Robere (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Slippery slope was how I described arguments like The inescapable consequence of such a conclusion is that sources will be able to restrict the editing of critical Wikipedians. And that was echoed over and over in the COIN, but when evaluating the argument against the claim as it stood, that there is a COI with editing related to this article, but not say Grabowski or the Holocaust in Poland, I found that it was indeed just a hypothetical that does not impact whether or not there is a COI related to that specific article, and so on that specific issue I gave that argument less weight. But now it is not a hypothetical, it has transformed in to, literally, sources will be able to restrict the editing of critical Wikipedians. And my reading of that discussion was if it had been seriously argued that a source like Grabowski could restrict editors from topic related to him that the arguments against a supposed COI would have carried the day. But it is no longer a hypothetical or a figment of ones imagination, somebody is indeed trying to have us slip down that slope. nableezy - 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But again, for a "slippery slope" to be more than an informal fallacy the end result must have a reasonable chance of occurring, and it must be a high enough chance to justify upending whatever policy is being discussed. In the context of this discussion one would have to show that the risk of sources choosing their editors is higher than the risk of editors abusing their sources - something we already know happens, and not infrequently. I don't think this argument has been made. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It has already occurred is my point and I dont think any policy is being upended here. Im not making a slippery slope argument, Im saying the slippery slope argument that was made in the COIN thread has in fact turned out to be true, or at least it is being attempted here. Im not saying some hypothetical scenario makes this iffy, Im saying the hypothetical that I largely dismissed as irrelevant to that COIN thread has turned out to be true, or at least some editors are attempting to make it so. nableezy - 17:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But that's an important distinction: it's not that the source in question has picked their editors, it's that editors supposedly gained another route for wikilawyering. Correct? François Robere (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand. What wikilawyering? I think we are talking past one another. When I said slippery slope argument I was referring to the arguments in the COIN thread that argued against a COI on the basis of the supposed inescapable consequences. And I was saying that here is an attempt at proving those consequences true. Regardless of any slippery slope, on the merits I dont think a COI has been established with Grabowski, and I find the evidence cited for it to be beyond flimsy. nableezy - 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that those "inescapable consequences" are not "inescapable" by any means, and that no one actually made the complete argument as to why that would be the case. You seem to rile not against the prospects of sources "playing favorites" with editors (which is what some editors were worried about), but about editors gaming/wikilawyering the COIN resolution. François Robere (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is playing a game with the close, I dont think any of the editors involved has continued to edit anything related to the Haaretz source, which is the only thing covered. I think this a completely separate issue and I dont really see anybody here as gaming. I think somebody is wrong, obviously, but that is on the merits. I dont think Grabowski purposely attempted to disqualify an editor by writing about him. I find that idea as silly as anything else here. But I do think the idea that a source can disqualify an editor by writing negatively about them, even if that is not their intention and only the position of some misguided WP editor, to be silly. Or if a person makes a remark about a topic off-wiki, including by responding to an op-ed about their editing, that makes a COI also silly. Does anybody actually think the two op-eds form a significant controversy in either persons life? Do you seriously think these people are avowed rivals now? And even if you did, do you actually think Piotrus has a COI with discussing Dalej jest noc? Because he wrote an op-ed answering an op-ed by a co-editor of the book? Do you really not think that absurd? nableezy - 21:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I think we should strive for objectivity, so "avowed rivalry" should hardly be the standard. Should I edit about my neigbhours? Co-workers? People with whom I contracted in an official capacity? People with whom I contracted in a personal capacity? Family? Friends? Any matter that would require a journalist to post a disclosure or a public official to disqualify themselves, should in the very least require a Wikipedean to do so as well. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Avowed rivals is what WP:COI says, so regardless of what you think it should say, do you think that what it does say applies? I dont think a journalist having written an op-ed criticizing an op-ed by some other journalist must disclose that now and forever if he or she ever mentions a work by that other journalist again. Do you? nableezy - 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It also says "anyone you know" (WP:COISELF). You're taking an unusually narrow stance on a problem that is usually taken as much broader (see WP:COI#Further reading and WP:BLP#Notes). François Robere (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats for personal relationships. Do you think those two people know each other? Not know of each other, know each other. nableezy - 18:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they do. IIRC, Piotrus at some point mentioned chatting with Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If they actually know each other to the point of having an external relationship (though having chatted once isnt that, WP:COISELF about self-promotion or promoting people you are close to) then there may well be an issue there. But, if has been suggested, all the evidence for a COI is having written an op-ed in response to another op-ed, and crucially having written that op-ed as the Wikipedia user, I dont buy it. nableezy - 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about CounterPunchs RfC

Considering the mess caused by the previous RfC, what is going to happen if the new RfC is results in 'No consensus'? I believe that in such case it is a return of the status quo ante but which? The latest RfC has not been overturned. So will no consensus results in de-deprecation or will it remain deprecated? Davide King (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If this one ends in no consensus and David Gerard refuses to overturn the prior one then I guess would have to be a close challenge at WP:AN. I very sincerely hope that does not happen though. nableezy - 03:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Operation Guardian of the Walls

Template:Editnotices/Page/Operation Guardian of the Walls has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

SPA(m)

Please remove your inaccurate insinuations as requested here. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah. nableezy - 14:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see here.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that arbitration case request has been declined as premature. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I note your comment at AE that you were not insinuating that I was a sock. Please amend your comments to make this clearer as it seems to me that's exactly what you were implying. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah. nableezy - 16:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined as premature

The above request for arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined by the Committee as premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 16:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen WP:OBVIOUSSOCK dissected with so much nuance  :) I guess it's a silver lining from being dragged to Arbcom, anyway. SN54129 16:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont even know if this is a sock or not tbh, not enough to go on. After the CP RFC edit seemed to look for an article to get to 500 edits, and so far has only edited that one. Im sure with time things will become a bit clearer, but I can honestly say I have not once implied that this editor is a sock. Just that they may not participate in ARBPIA related discussions. I have a bigger problem with the established users effectively running interference in a discussion that we know has been infested with IW socks. The throwaway accounts are much less pernicious imo. nableezy - 16:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not yet annoyed enough?

Hi Nableezy! I have noticed your observation about a potential reincarnation of Ledernierhomme. I am annoyed enough, but still not confident enough to proceed. What's your take now after almost three months? –Austronesier (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

More likely than not imo, but also not sure how that could be proven. All the Ledernierhomme and AFolkSingersBeard socks are stale. nableezy - 15:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your kind words

Nableezy, thanks for your kind words on that Arbitration forum. I wish to only say that the page in which I was editing asked for the current government over the city and I could not possibly think of leaving it blank, although perhaps you can come along and re-submit the draft copy (Draft:Outline of Jerusalem), but add this time that its status is disputed. I could not do that because of my limited topic ban. I was not advocating any international acceptance of the current government, because, honestly, if you ask my personal opinion, I would prefer a monarchy over Israel's current political system. That's my own view. Secondly, I am against dividing up the country with barrier fences, etc., because this gives the impression that Jews and Arabs cannot get along, when I think we can. I work with Arabs from Surif and other nearby villages, and I can tell you that I highly respect and love some of these families, and I would love to visit them in their respective villages, if it were not for the tensions created by some of those of a more radical mindset and who upset dual co-existence in our mutually shared country.Davidbena (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

David, just saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is itself about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Asserting that because the current government of the city is Israel that means that Jerusalem is either in Israel as a whole or the capital of Israel as a whole is taking a position, even you are trying to omit the other position entirely. You cant talk about the modern politics of Israel without talking about the conflict, by either commission or omission. I promise you, if you ever come to me and ask nableezy I want to edit this topic but I dont know if I can within the boundaries of my ban I will give you my honest advice. Right now my honest advice is a sincere mea culpa at AE, tell them that you will be more careful, that you will seek out the advice of others if you are getting anywhere near a topic that could be in dispute. And if somebody says hey this is a violation to you, right away self-revert and then ask for clarification. Dont try to argue against it, because to be frank with you your understanding of the limits of the ban has been time and time again been proven wrong. I wish you all the best David, I hope you had a nice holiday season and have had a happy and healthy new year so far. nableezy - 19:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Davidbena; I intended to write my 2-cents at the AE page today, but I see that it has already been closed with your indefinite topic ban. Some points:

• I agree with everything Nableezy wrote on the AE-page
• When you write things like "This article came to describe Jerusalem; not the government," BUT: writing that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is writing about "the government"; is that so difficult to see?? (and yes: you could have left it blank) It is when you write things like that that I feel like tearing my hair out in frustration. (Even worse: I am in no doubt that you honestly mean both...)
• I see that you are now totally banned from the I/P area, which, believe it or not, I think is a shame. If you, say in 6 months time, want to appeal and ask for a "narrowed" topic ban (like here); I would support that. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Huldra:. I tried my best to avoid contentious issues, and did not think that the de-facto ruling government would present a big problem. Obviously, I was wrong. It only goes to underscore how deeply this subject is felt among parties. Even religious Jews can sometimes disagree with their government and want to have nothing to do with it, but would not hesitate to state the reality on the ground. Believe me, I'm learning. I'll wait to submit my appeal to this topic ban, but, in my view, it is best to avoid anything which can lead to more confusion about what I can or cannot edit. My limited topic ban has already brought me into lots of trouble. Better not to have any limitations at all, and work under the set guidelines given to us all on Wikipedia, looking for consensus and a neutral point of view.Davidbena (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)