User talk:Nableezy/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Blocks

Hi. I see it got you too. Horrible times, with repercussions on Wiki, too. Thanks again for showing understanding when I was in the dock. Wiki is not such an important stage, but it can still sometimes sting.

If you can be bothered with this, and I'd fully understand if you'd ignore it: I was trying to figure out some Hebrew text concerning plants dumped onto a page and Gilabrand seemed like the perfect person to ask. Now I see she's banned indefinitely. Hard to believe, she does belong to a certain generation and its mainstream Zionist convictions, but she's equally Wiki-active and harmless, with tonnes of useful factual contributions. What unexpected crime did she commit? Do you know if anything can be done about it? Wiki militancy has reached painful proportions, cancelling useful contributors is seriously harming the project. Thanks.

May peace for all those who wish it come sooner than it looks. Arminden (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Gila was blocked for topic ban violations, and I thought that block was quite over the top and said so. Her appeal didn’t go over as well as I had hoped it would, with some part of it due to apparent copyright violations in her work over the years. I thought she was a very good editor and regretted the tiffs we had with each other very much, and I wish the ban had been appealed much earlier so that this block wouldn’t have happened. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done at this point, she’s either going to be blocked for the topic ban violations or the copyright violations. Sorry, wish I had better news for you on that front. Or any front to be honest. Take care Arminden. nableezy - 12:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Chicago City Council

Can't keep them Chicagoans down Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Undone revision: New Historians

@Nableezy: Please provide a rationale for reverting my edit to the article New Historians. The article on Palestinian refugees linked to states that refugees "fled or were expelled", meaning not all were expelled. If necessary, I can find a notable reference. (I've come across an estimate from Benny Morris before that 10-15% of the Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces.) Thanks. Dotyoyo (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Expelled applies to those not allowed to return, so expelled by itself would work, but you can change to chased out to fled if you want. To pretend like it only applies to "some" of them is however a complete bogus assertion. nableezy - 17:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I now see that the footnote at the end of the 5th bullet point covers all the bullet points. I had thought that the first four bullet points were unsourced. Dotyoyo (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from blindly reverting edits while the RfC is now ongoing

@NableezyAs the source is most likely to be considered Gunrel, please make an actual argument for inclusion instead of blindly reverting; ironically enough, per FAIT FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not how this works, all your edits based on it being deprecated are invalid and I am going through them to restore them. You dont get to create a new status quo based on an invalid rationale, sorry. nableezy - 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And you are not supposed to blindly revert edits, particularly those with additional backing and a likely unreliable source without an actual argument, particularly those that pre-date my knowledge of the noticeboard. Otherwise, I will have to remove all of those covered by Gunrel if the RfC closes as such, which is most likely as of now and covers most of my edits. I have not begun making changes based on Gunrel, and neither should you.

An exception can be made for the one I responded to at the talk page, because while your argument was not sufficient, it may be aboutself (founder about their org in EI) and therefore actually acceptable insofar as you agree with my assessment. FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am entitled to revert edits whose basis is not policy compliant, and your removals of a source as deprecated that is not deprecated is not policy compliant. Again, no. And I will challenge individual removals where I think the source is fine if it remains GUNREL, which it already was. But, again, the answer to your request is no. If that does not satisfy you then you can raise the issue somewhere else, but I have answered your request here and see no reason for further discussion about things that should be discussed on article talk pages. If you think the source is unusable in some instance you are welcome to make an argument for that. On the article talk page, not here. nableezy - 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You are allowed to make edits based on that, but you are not permitted to make edits by directly going through my edit history, particularly considering WP:Hounding (I revoked my waiver of that a while ago, just fyi), of which you made me aware after finding one place to edit through your edit history.

I don’t mind you looking specifically for citations that are acceptable with Gunrel and unacceptable by a depreciated source, but I don’t believe this to be the case here. If that is what you believe to be doing, I would appreciate an argument beyond „no longer depreciated“ that you can add to your reverts.

And just to clarify, my removals were certainly policy compliant before you opened the discussion, and most likely after (before you asked me to stop).

If you prefer not to stop without a dispute resolution measure, I would politely ask you to inform me of that and have the same courtesy I paid you, to pause your actions during such an action if I choose to open it. FortunateSons (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no part of that is true. WP:HOUNDING Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. (and no, you found several places, but I dont really feel like going in to all that either). You are well aware that I saw your removals across a range of pages without going through your contributions, and if you would like to report HOUNDING then feel free to do so. I dont really care what you believe, your edits removed a source as deprecated and that source is not deprecated. And in case you missed it the first time, EI was already listed as generally unreliable. So a close with that status changes nothing. And you need to justify the removals with something other than claim that is not true. If you continue to insist on badgering me here I am going to ask you to stop editing this page. If you think some of my reinsertions are improper feel free to raise it on a talk page. But for this topic there is nothing else to discuss on this user talk page. Please stop. nableezy - 15:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I go through your edits where it specifically concerns the reversal of past edits to open talk page discussions? That way, it will be faster for me. FortunateSons (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

By all means. nableezy - 16:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the good faith FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at this FortunateSons (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Dont see anything there that changes any of my thinking here. nableezy - 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all? FortunateSons (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. You really want me to ask you to not edit my user talk page again? Because thats the direction this discussion is heading. nableezy - 20:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for your excellent work on Mosques. I personally have revamped this page, what do you think given your experience? Scientelensia (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, though I am generally not a fan of galleries. If you can expand the material to work the pictures in to where they would be relevant I think thats a solid goal. But great work, nableezy - 16:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That’s a good goal which I shall soon begin on. Scientelensia (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For enormous contributions to articles related to Israel and Palestine, and careful considerations in editing disputes. Truly a Wikipedian gem! Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chicago Community Bond Fund

On 8 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chicago Community Bond Fund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Chicago Community Bond Fund sought to put itself out of business by eliminating cash bail? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chicago Community Bond Fund. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chicago Community Bond Fund), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Accusation of US complicity in Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza

Hello Nableezy. Do you have time to take a look at this draft and see if it's in good shape? Feel free to add or remove any content you like.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats a lot of reading tbh, but I see it moved to article space so guess thats that anyway. nableezy - 23:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Nableezy. I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Intercept

Hi Nableezy. I speak Hebrew and listened to Anat's interview. I can honestly say that the claim of the intercept The Channel 12 podcast interview with Schwartz, which The Intercept translated from Hebrew, opens a window into the reporting process on the controversial story and suggests that The New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative is false.

We both know that the Intercept is not such a reliable source and since this is a BLP - it should be removed. GidiD (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept is a perfectly reliable source, and your say so does not trump what a reliable source says, sorry. nableezy - 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as a matter of curiosity

I remember some years ago, some offwiki site estimated that, as a Hamas stooge, you had ridden Wikipedia of about 60 sockpuppets who, in their view, were simply editing to protect Israel. I thought at the time that this must be an exaggeration based on the inability to grasp that a sock is by definition someone who has already edited there and been banned, and that since a sockmaster like NoCal used at least a dozen different accounts, the figure must be far lower. Do you ever keep track of the precise number of these sockpuppets? Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

More probably tbh, but that just means the accounts blocked, not the individual people. It isn't just NoCal, it's the AndresHerutJaim socks, the Evidence-based socks (I'm pretty sure that Historicist and E.M.Gregory are him), then Ledeneirhomme/AFolksSingersBeard (pretty sure they were the same too), Dajudem with Stellarkid and Snakeswithfeet. But I dont keep track, could try to count em up though. For individual people, guessing ten or so? Accounts? Clay Davis captures my thoughts on the number. nableezy - 20:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

These are the blocked socks attributed to NoCal100 for interest. I guess the shape of a curve connecting all of the registration dates might suggest there are lots of undetected accounts out there. There are some unhelpful inconsistencies in the way sock-ness is stored in Wikipedia's systems, but the sock categories and/or comments in block logs probably finds most of them...I hope. Misassigning a sock to the wrong master is a problem. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit in article "Solomon's Pools"

Nableezy, I hope that you have been keeping well. I wish to correct an error in the article Solomon's Pools, where there is a superfluous word written in the "History" section, under the sub-section "Upper pools." The current edit reads: "The construction date of the upper (westernmost) two pools is uncertain but they was probably started during the Hasmonean period." The same edit should be corrected to read as follows: "The construction date of the upper (westernmost) two pools is uncertain but was probably started during the Hasmonean period." With your permission, I will make the edit. Please inform.Davidbena (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad to see you back David, and that edit would be fine. Take care, nableezy - 01:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Davidbena (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Another edit, with your permission

@Nableezy:, I'm sorry to disturb you. In the article Awarta, I saw a need for a slight expansion in the section "Ottoman era." There, I wish to make the following addition:

The site was visited in the 17th-century CE by Ottoman explorer, Evliya Çelebi. In his detailed travelogue, he wrote that Awarta was situated between Balāṭa and Ḥuwwāra as one traveled the country from north to south. In this place, he notes, is located the “house of el-‘Uzair,” erroneously translated as the ‘house of Ezra,’ but actually meaning the “tomb of Eleazar, the son of Aaron,” and which at that time had already been converted into a mosque.

References

-Davidbena (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine as well David. nableezy - 06:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Edit to the page "Za'atar"

With your permission, I wish to add a reference (source) to the article Za'atar, at the end of the lead paragraph. I wish to cite from Gustav Dalman, using the following reference with a quote from him:

XXX

-

References

-Davidbena (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me nableezy - 23:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Davidbena (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Right to resist

A lot of editors have been outraged by your remark that Palestinians have the right to resist (even violently): Well, you are in good company so not John Mearsheimer's remarks apropos about 25 minutes into The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Outside the Box Podcast, 18 April 2024 Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s amazing to me how many people can support Ukraine but fail to see the parallels with the Palestinians. Apparently the right to violently resist foreign occupation is one of those rights that’s restricted to white Europeans 🤷🏽‍♂️. nableezy - 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is this bun fight and these editors unfamiliar with "rights"? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No bunfight, just a stumbling trip down meme-ory lane.:)Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You've been contributing to the Israel-Hamas war article for more than 200 days now. Keep up the neutrality and good work, Cheers! Abo Yemen✉ 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Posting an External Link

Nableezy, if you can agree, I would like to post this external link to the Wikipedia article City of David (archaeological site). Please inform.Davidbena (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Closer to the edge but I think it’s ok, so go ahead. nableezy - 14:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Nableezy.  Done. My eyes are watering. Wishing there was peace worldwide.Davidbena (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Same friend, same. nableezy - 00:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on 1RR in ARBPIA

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Bethlehem

Before a revert-war is started in violation of special revert conditions of Bethlehem. I suggest we discuss what is the best way to describe the area. شكرًا لك It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The best way to describe the West Bank is the way sources do, which is Israeli occupied. This is the super majority view on that. Also, multiple people reverting your attempt to force through non neutral material is not a revert war. You should not be attempting to force in a contested change. nableezy - 19:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy. I'm afraid smth went wrong after your last edit, the text disappears after "and as of 2021". Thanks, Arminden (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now i think nableezy - 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The great man

speaking about his family, in case you missed it. Just 1 hr 15 minutes into it, the earlier part being of course quite familiar (even if his redeployment of the 'mowing the lawn' metaphor for 7 October was new to me). Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

about 110 minutes in Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hard pass. nableezy - 02:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

genocide

If it is determined that Israel and Hamas committed genocide, what will the articles Palestinian genocide accusation and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel be renamed to? The first one is not only about the war in Gaza. Parham wiki (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That isnt something I would decide, as Wikipedia has yet to anoint me to my rightful place of arbiter of all content. nableezy - 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm I thought about proposing that in our cabal, but I have yet to see you edit (and adjudicate) K-pop and rasslin' content. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

lol, I spend enough time on Wikipedia to get in to K-pop fights. Guess Ill fail my review at the annual overlords of Wikipedia meeting. nableezy - 02:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Edits by a user you previously have dealings with.

Just wondering how to go about something like this where the user goes out of their way to add their own analysis, outside of what is in the linked article. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:MUTUAL proposal

I forgot to ping in my comment, but I propose we do a WP:MUTUAL removal and basically delete the entire "BBC Synth issue" split-discussion I started. The issue is solved and it turned into my getting to hot-headed. It is just us in the small discussion threat, so MUTUAL is a valid option. So, would you agree to my proposal? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• As a note, I want to back away from the discussion, except that ORN, since that is now a true curiosity I have now. But the main attack talk page debate, I want to drop the stick and back away from. A mutual deletion will honestly help me do that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• What Id prefer is you started treating these discussion pages as something other than a place to shoot the shit and started treating it like a place where grownups discuss how to improve encyclopedia articles. I dont really give a shit what you do with that section, and tbh Ive already muted your pings as I find the practice of pinging somebody to a discussion you know they are watching to be more annoying than useful. nableezy - 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Al-Sardi school attack

1. 16:58, 11 June 2024 (Taking content that an editor put in Wikivoice and attributing it is partially undoing their actions)
2. 15:25, 11 June 2024 (Removing content that an editor added is undoing their actions)

Please self-revert 16:58, 11 June 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think number 1 is a revert by any definition of the term revert. Feel free to report it, but Ill be asking that you be banned from AE for making tendentious reports if/when you do. nableezy - 17:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

asked and answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To use an example from the discussion at ScottishFinnishRadishs talkpage; an editor adds "BilledMammal is a platypus". Their action is to add, in Wikivoice, this claim. If another editor comes along and then attributes this claim - "According to BilledMammal, BilledMammal is a platypus" - then they have undone the action to put the claim in Wikivoice and so have made a revert. SFR, since I'm pinging you anyway, can you comment on this? BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Again, that isnt a revert, that is an edit. I also do not think admin-shopping is an appropriate tactic here either. I dont think youd appreciate me pinging Ealdgyth who has now multiple times cautioned your enthusiasm for making AE reports. If you think this is a 1RR violation then go ahead report it, and face the potential for a boomerang that I think is long overdue. nableezy - 17:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Please, keep it civil. There is no need for personal attacks such as accusing me of "admin shopping" (and don't you think if I was admin shopping, I would go for one who hasn't recently warned me and page blocked me?) Believe it or not, I'm not eager to take editors to AE, so I will wait to see what SFR says about whether this is a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Pinging, or otherwise approaching, a specific admin for a problem is the definition of admin shopping. That isnt an accusation, thats just a fact. nableezy - 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) My understanding was that it is appropriate to ask an administrator to informally take a look at an issue, as an attempt at a low-drama resolution. Are you saying otherwise, and that the only recourse is to go straight to ANI or AE when discussion between the involved editors fails to resolve a perceived conduct issue? BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC) So, how about an interaction ban, with the exception that you can respond to RFCs started by one another granted you don't mention each other? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) I have done nothing to merit a ban in any way whatsoever here, and if you impose one I will appeal it all the way to ArbCom if need be. Thats, pardon my French, bullshit. nableezy - 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) I have no issue with a two-way, voluntary unlogged IBAN; it will probably be helpful to reduce tension and drama. However, I would ask that it expires at the conclusion of the current war, and that the exception should extend to other formal discussions such as requested moves. For the record and my future understanding, would you be able to clarify whether 16:58, 11 June 2024 is a revert? BilledMammal (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) I refuse any voluntary ban here, and if it is imposed I will appeal it. BM coming here with bogus claims doesnt mean I should be banned from reverting edits they make or responding to claims they make on the talk pages they are active, which Id hazard to guess is nearly all of them. nableezy - 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) The entire dynamic between the two of you is disruptive. You'll argue with each other to no end other than the argument itself because you'll never convince each other of anything. This is the same reason I ibanned Lev and VM, and it certainly seemed Arbcom understood my intent. I imagine the same would happen here. You don't have to respond to their claims on talk pages, there's plenty of other people who can, and it's not actually helping anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Wrong on all counts. I have not been uncivil or aggressive with BM on talk pages, and my responses to them have been cited by others. In many cases they make statements that I respond to demonstrating their position is incorrect and others agree with me. There is zero evidence for The entire dynamic between the two of you is disruptive, thats just an unsupported supposition based on what I assume are vibes. Again, if you impose an unjustified ban having been adminshopped here then I will appeal it. Do what you want, but its bullshit based on bullshit, and as Ive demonstrated any number of times I have no issue appealing poorly justified bans. I dont need to convince BM of anything when I respond to them, the point is to convince a consensus of other editors that their position is not based in fact or policy, and on several occasions I have done just that. And I would hazard to guess the reason why one of us is on board with your proposal is because they see it as being to their advantage that I am unable to do that. nableezy - 18:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) And I would hazard to guess the reason why one of us is on board with your proposal is because they see it as being to their advantage that I am unable to do that. Can we please keep it civil? I'm willing to accept it because I recognize that our discussions go nowhere and instead increase tension and drama in the topic area, even when I'm trying to propose a compromise based on the sources you prefer. It's not because I think you're more effective than I at convincing other editors of your position - if you look at the current dispute, the only formal discussion resulted in my arguments convincing several other editors and a consensus forming for the position I supported. BilledMammal (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) That isnt true, we had an RFC about the infobox at the main page where your view was shot down by consensus (you edited and argued for attributing inline to Hamas-run MOH, ie this version, the RFC had an overwhelming consensus reject that view). And the RFC you reference predates discussions on the reliability of the MoH. As far as your request to keep it civil, I am. nableezy - 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) First, thank you for finally providing a link to the discussion you've been referring to. Second, it found a consensus to use "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry"; option one was this version, and it used that wording. BilledMammal (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) No, it found consensus for attributing in an endnote. The end. nableezy - 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) The current dispute is whether we should use "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". That discussion found a consensus for the latter, and while it also found consensus that it should go in a different location from where I believed it should go that aspect doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Although, this seems to be what SFR is referring to about us arguing with each other to no end other than the argument itself because you'll never convince each other of anything, and so I'll step back now. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) If you dont want to be accused of admin shopping then yes, going to a venue where you are not picking the admin to respond would be what you should do. If you are just asking for advice then sure, but here you are asking an admin who has already given me a topic ban recently to opine on if I should be sanctioned. That is not asking somebody to informally look into an issue, and indeed you brought him here with threats of another unjustified ban. Color me surprised. nableezy - 17:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish if you think an IBAN is appropriate I would ask that you raise it at AE. I am not saying you are involved, but this situation in which a user pings you to the page of somebody you had previously sanctioned and you then impose a new sanction without any other admin reviewing the discussion or the basis is not sitting right with me. This is precisely why I objected to the pinging in the first place, and I do not think you have provided any evidence that The entire dynamic between the two of you is disruptive. I obviously have as much power to make you recuse as I do Samuel Alito, but I absolutely will be appealing anything you impose from this. nableezy - 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) As far as the ping goes, I get a whole lot of ARBPIA pings because I'm the only patrolling admin in the topic area. I also have your talk page watchlisted and sighed so loud I'm surprised you didn't hear it when this section popped up on my watchlist. As for implementing the sanction, I simply don't have the time to sink into that right now. We'll see how things go in the future, but even this discussion provides a wonderful example of the two of you arguing for no reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Maybe your sigh would be better off as a written "wtf how does anybody think that first edit is a revert"? But thats just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As far as only one, that may have been true a few months ago, but AE is getting plenty of participation these days, enough that approaching an admin individually shouldnt be the default behavior as your talk page and AE now do have a functional difference. <added after the below comment was added> Also, you made a similar point with Andrevan once upon a time, remarking that my refuting their claims, a refutation that was cited by other editors as changing their minds about the discussion, was proof of a toxic atmosphere. It was not true then and it is not true now. The structure of this place makes it so that yes you have involved users with views that likely are as stuck in sand as the pyramids, but we also have uninvolved users reading the discussion and formulating their own views, often based on the arguments offered. And that is part of the process. Your "no heat is the correct amount of heat" view on what constitutes disruption would make that process break. Yes, involved users are going to argue. Uninvolved users are the ones that usually determine what "consensus" is based on those arguments. nableezy - 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) "wtf how does anybody think that first edit is a revert"? If we can consume a little bit more of SFR's time, can we get clarification on this question - whether 16:58, 11 June 2024 is a revert (whether changing to/from Wikivoice constitutes undoing the action of another editor)? BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC) You asked for a revert, they declined, take it to AE. That's the agreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC) That's true, but I imagine this can be cleared up without that drama if you can clarify whether it is or isn't a revert - if you think it is, I believe they'll revert, and if you think it isn't, I'll drop it and remember that when assessing future edits. BilledMammal (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) It's on the exact edge being discussed on my talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC) I dont think this is anywhere near an edge case, and I find it absurd to call that edit a revert. That is effectively saying any material may not be changed except through reverting. It breaks the entire idea of collaborative editing, instead giving an iron-clad first movers advantage to any editor putting in any material, no matter how poorly worded or sourced the material may be. I have zero issue with BM raising this at AE, but that will indeed include me asking for a boomerang sanction for tendentious reporting. nableezy - 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Nableezy, today you claimed that removing a tag that editors agreed was resolved was a revert - despite you having made edits in the recent past that, by that definition, would also be a 1RR violation such as here. I really don't want to take you to AE, and I'm not sure you want me to either given you have recently been insisting that a very strict definition of 1RR be applied to other editors, but not to yourself. Can we please just resolve this with a self-revert and move on? BilledMammal (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC) That is a straight removal, that is always a revert. And by the way, that edit still had the synth reference in the infobox (it still does for the record). So no, that did not resolve the tag. As for your request, very obviously no because my edit is not a revert, and this idea that attributing something from a combatant that was previously added unattributed is a revert is asinine. Report whatever you want to, and we can find out how things turn out from there. Im personally pretty confident that it ends with an AE ban for you, but YMMV. Like I said, I have zero issue with you reporting this. I dont have a problem self-reverting when I mistakenly make an extra revert, I do however object to being intimidated with a phony report to self-revert something that is not a revert. So no, I will not be self-reverting, and you are welcome to take that AE. nableezy - 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC) I agree that it's pretty nice that AE is seeing a bit more activity, because I shouldn't have the amount of influence over ARBPIA that I do. I'm glad to see that changing. However, I still got a ping from another editor today to swoop in and do some adminning. There's a difference between patrolling the topic area and taking part in AE reports. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)