Jump to content

User talk:Nableezy/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Nableezy

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 7 February 2024 (manual archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 58

Result of arbitration

Hi, do you know if I can start editing restricted pages once i reach 500 edits? Or should i aim for 600-700? Thank you! DMH43 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You can start at 500, but I wouldnt treat getting to 500 as a goal more just a result of editing normally. The whole point of the restriction, beyond putting a tiny brake on the sockpuppetry, is to get people better acquainted with our content policies in less heated topics. So just edit normally and as you gain experience you'll find yourself past 500 edits without really trying to get there. nableezy - 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok great, thank you! DMH43 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"discuss it on my talk page"

Yeah, it is uncivil, as you've repeatedly accused me of tendentious editing and misrepresenting sources, which has never been true, so please withdraw that baseless aspersion and apologize or I'll open a new report. Andre🚐 23:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You wrote that the accusation of rapes has been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. The source you later cite says The evidence, primarily from the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli officials, suggests that dozens of Israeli women were raped or sexually abused or mutilated during the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. According to first responders, one was mutilated with a pair of scissors and another stabbed with a knife. The genitals of some men who had been killed were mutilated as well. I know you have the competence to edit here, so Im not going to pretend you dont understand the difference between "suggests" and "proven". I am not going to pretend like you dont know something has been proven by video footage means there is video footage proving it. There is not a single source saying that. There are sources saying that eyewitnesses have made accounts of rape, gang rape, and sexual mutilation, there are sources that saying that first responders have said they have seen signs of rape, there are sources that say that there is growing evidence of rape, there are NGOs that I highly respect (PHR Israel for example) saying that the available evidence suggests rapes occured and have demanded full investigations (which I personally agree with all parts of). But your claim was rapes have been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. That was false. It was made up. And it is not incivil to say that when you make something up that you made something up. Go right ahead, open anything you like. I know what you wrote, I know what I wrote, and I know what the sources say. What you wrote was not true. You are trying to present these things as though this is established fact that is accepted as fact by the sources, and any deviation from that is on its face denialism and offensive to basic decency. Noting that the sources are in fact attributing accusations and eyewitness accounts, and that they do not say anything about any video proving anything about this, when you are portraying them as establishing it as fact is not incivil. Report whatever you want. If you want to correct what you wrote feel free. I would of course adjust my comment in that case. But what you wrote, and still have on the talk page, is not true. It is made up. nableezy - 23:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Here's what you don't understand. You disagreed with my statement on it being "proven," and I'm granting you that "proven" was not the right word to use, but that it was "more likely true than not." However in the process you accused me of fabricating information, a lie. AGF says you must assume that I made a mistake, not that I lied to you. You don't get that. I guess I'll see you at AE in a few days after I finish compiling all the diffs of your violation of civility over the last few weeks. There are quite a few. Andre🚐 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Here's my amendment [1] do you have any amendments, or shall we adjourn until we meet again? As I'll point out, you states There is no video footage or photographs or documentary evidence, there are eyewitness accounts and there are denials and I provided those from NBC, which you said were probably fabricated. Andre🚐 23:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Here you go. And NBC does not say there is any video footage of any rape. Where did I say anything was probably fabricated? nableezy - 23:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that will do fine. Let it not be said I do not seek de-escalation. I'm referring to your statement about the babies. You made an equivalence that because the thing about the babies was fabricated, therefore the other rape stuff is also probably fabricated or falsified. You did not use that exact word, but that was your implication. That's not a civility violation, mind you. I'm just explaining what I meant. Andre🚐 23:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I was saying that an organization that has repeatedly proven itself to have provided accounts that have turned out to be totally manufactured should probably not be just taken as gospel for other accounts. I believe you have a similar feeling wrt sources like Fox News. Thats the problem with embellishment, it makes people trust you less even when youre telling the truth. When ZAKA spreads these wild rumors, and then they get repeatedly debunked, it makes people question their credibility. Chaim Levinson made the same point. nableezy - 00:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I've never even heard of ZAKA before today. But if BBC and NBC and other reliable sources are covering it and there's video and photos and documentation, that does not matter. And I'm not sure why to bring up Levinson. Here's a column from him [2] He clearly refers to the Hamas footage. In one bit of footage from the Hamas terrorists’ GoPro cameras, as reported by foreign media, a terrorist is heard phoning his father and jubilantly telling him, “I killed 10 Jews!” Andre🚐 00:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The tweet from Levinson is about how these false stories are gifts to Hamas, and admonishing the people sharing them to be smarter. I’m aware of his reporting but I have no idea what why you think that’s relevant. nableezy - 01:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
SFR is warning us above that we should cool it. I'm not sure after reading his warning you both a) told him he's making a mistake, and b) responded again to the thread arguing about this. So, at the risk of this message itself being escalation, I am going to try to abide by SFR's warning and this will be my last message here for a while unless I need to notify you of something. Andre🚐 02:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary inflammation

This was mostly fine, but leave out the snide Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then. Pulling things back to be a bit more dispassionate would be even better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the inflammation was from the condescending and patronizing tone in the comment I was responding to, but I’ll try to find a way of answering what I find to be hypocritical patronization with something less acerbic than mild sarcastic dismissal. nableezy - 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, it's appreciated. It's much harder to police tone than it is actual snide comments, and it's even harder to ding someone for their tone when there's a clear snide comment right beside it. My hope is that if I make enough warnings for the most obvious temperature-raising stuff it'll die off enough where I can start focusing on the more subtle stuff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Nableezy, this is now a warning. Stop this. Leave out the accusations. You can discuss possible misinterpretation or misrepresentations without direct personal commentary. This needs to stop. If you leave out the first sentence you're talking about a reading of sources, not making direct accusations against another editor. If you believe there is a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation take it to AE where it belongs.
Additionally, you and Andrevan need to stop arguing. Your persistent arguing isn't convincing anyone else and it's disruptive to the rest of the discussions. Both of you need to stop responding to each other. You two obviously disagree and it's vanishingly unlikely that you're going to convince each other of anything and only creates more hostility. As that hostility increases the both of you get more worked up which leads to more personal commentary, even against other editors, which increases hostility and so on. Other editors get drawn in and both sides get hardened against the other, compromise becomes less likely, and everything gets shittier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you’re making a mistake but I don’t think engaging further is likely to lead to anything positive, so noted. nableezy - 01:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Then make your case at AE, or if you believe it's too complex take it to Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I dont think what he did rises to AE, making a claim a source doesnt support on a talk page isnt the sort of thing that should be reported to AE. But neither is saying that claim is false. If somebody says something false, and I think that false statement is being taken as though it were true by people responding in the RFC, I say the statement is false. He has even accepted that his statement as originally stated was overstated, but Im warned for saying it is made up? Is it because I say he made it up as opposed to it passively is made up? But this is what I meant in I dont think engaging is going to lead to anything productive, if anything its probably going to get me in hotter water. He modified his comment and I modified my critique. If you feel the original sequence merits a warning then fine. Hell if you feel the ongoing level of commentary merits that warning fine, fair enough too. But I dont honestly think this sequence does, but its not that big a deal anyway. nableezy - 04:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What to do about disruptive users

I've interacted with a user who has been difficult to collaborate with who also seems to be making lots of disruptive edits on the site. For example:

Is there a process for formally reviewing an editors recent edits for issues? Can I just add a topic here with my concerns? or do they issues need to be linked to a specific wikipedia guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ? DMH43 (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This place is much more toxic (and especially hostile to new editors) than I could have guessed, while allowing users like this to continue with their activities, uninterrupted. Truly a shame. DMH43 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Only tangentially related to the above, but users seem so slow to respond to Talk page posts. Most of my posts on their get ignored or just get forgotten. Another case of interacting with that user where they reverted a change of mine which removed a quote which is not present in any of the sources (!!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oslo_Accords#c-Yr_Enw-20231224171000-Yr_Enw-20231224170200 The talk page is silent. I understand it's around Christmas, but admins are eager to chime in to share support for my EC permission being revoked meanwhile something like this goes ignored. DMH43 (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@DMH43, listen, you need to slow down and take a minute to relax and expect that the body of editors at AN will try to look at things with AGF in mind to consider the issue carefully. The rapid fire comments one after another is going to discourage that, not encourage that. At the admin boards, more than any other place, less is more. Youve made your point, but you have to stop harping on it until people engage with it. nableezy - 22:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Got it DMH43 (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Words can hurt

Nableezy, I find your revert insulting. I understand you don't like my style. And I saw you use negative terminology over and over again. This isn't the first time you do this to people ([3] [4]). I am asking you to try and speak in a positive tone. Eladkarmel (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Which part? The grammar is garbage part? Sorry, Ill try to be less harsh, but Elad you are editing the lead of an English language encyclopedia article. You have to do it with better English. If you cant then suggest an edit on the talk page and let somebody with better command of English grammar make the edit. As far as the other edits, i24 is a garbage source with a demonstrated history of publishing bullshit, and I dont know who I am insulting besides i24 in that. The latter comment was a response on my talk page. If somebody is going to badger me with complaints that I reverted some garbage that was shoved in the lead Im probably going to tell them why I did it. nableezy - 22:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I think if you look at all my edits you will agree that I am a valuable contributor to the English Wikipedia. Even though my writing might not be perfect sometimes (hopefully not too often), I think the info I added is crucial for a fair perspective. Got a better way to phrase it? Go for it. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The info you added is subject to an ongoing RFC and that was why I removed it. If it had just been the grammar I would have fixed it. I decline to comment on anything else here. nableezy - 14:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, if there's an appeal to the AE sanction I think that comments related to this dispute, including this edit, should NOT be taken into consideration: IMO they are not excessive and do not add to the battleground atmosphere--if anything, the edit by Elad that prompted it is an attempt to heighten the rhetorical temperature in article space. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Interested in the weather?

Hey Nableezy. We crossed paths a few times in the past in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I know you are topic banned from that for 90 days, so I wanted to see if you were interested in the weather. I edit a lot around the topic along with the WikiProject of Weather. My current project is working on a list of every deadly tornado. But, there is thousands of weather articles that need improvement or even creation. Again, I’m not sure if you are interested in editing around the topic, but if you are, feel free to message me. Cheers and keep up the amazing work on Wikipedia! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not really interested in weather articles. nableezy - 16:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Ealdgyth, happy new year to you and yours as well. nableezy - 16:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry - and I'm sorry it was you who made the edit. It was inevitable, as many wrong things are, but you could have left it to somebody else. So many ugly things are happening, and some people are stoking and throwing it at the fan, like Sarsour, and some are just feeling helpless, 'cause ugliness is taking over all around, from all sides. And then better not add to it, stay out of it. I'll try - again - to follow my own advice. Take care, stay good. Arminden (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Arminden, the reason I defended you at AE is because I get why there is this anger. I understand why you were editing emotionally. And I dont think that some isolated outburst wipes away all of the good things youve done here. There have been several moments in the past 10 weeks or whatever its been that have made me edit emotionally. A good friend of mine has lost over 15 people in his family in that time, and I got to keep seeing one of his little cousins, the orphan child of what had been an orphaned father, all over social media. There was a video of a child that was still alive with half their face blown off, you could see him still moving, still in pain, and then you get the update that they are undergoing surgery with no anesthesia, and then that they, mercifully, died. And the fact that I was literally thankful that this child died fucked me up. And it showed in my edits, I was editing with my emotions, and my emotions were white hot. Some of our best editors have fallen victim to that over the years, Malik Shabazz reacted to a white man who had harassed him over years over multiple accounts calling him "sonny boy" and the resulting what was, just given our editor base, overwhelmingly white men ho-humming on ANI about a white man calling a black man boy in any context at all the way that I imagine I would react if that had happened to me. And he lost his admin bit as a result, and I dont think the anger ever really subsided from there, until he just left. The amount of esteem that people I highly regard hold for you is enough reason for me to not report you for the things youve said to and about me in the past. And now too. But you have to be able to realize when your emotions are what are driving your edits. And that somebody who is simply following our editorial policy shouldnt be expected to deal with an editor saying something like Sleep well. If you can. nableezy - 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm beyond sorry to hear about those people. How can you live on in times like this? I don't care now about blocks or arbitrations or any of those games, it feels so irrelevant. There's very little one can hang on to when the real world falls down the drain. Wikipedia is little more than FB mixed with crosswords. It can't move anything. And things need moving, as you see and feel more painfully than me. It shouldn't have been you to take the FGM thing out, and it shouldn't have been me to put it in, and even less to come back at you. I wasn't even fully aware who took it out when I replied. It's just one more of those games that - in real life - end up killing: we choose to see only this bit, ignore the other, that's what the rules are asking us to, that's what "people" are expecting us to do. A spade is never a spade, even when it hits the skull bone; it depends on the angle you look at it, context, etiquette.

Sorry. I hope better news will come your way. Good night. I'll go out to get some air. Arminden (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Idk honestly, you do the best you can to help as much as you can, but sometimes you just feel helpless. And yeah, a lot of what happens here definitely feels irrelevant, but I do still believe in the fundamental tenets of this place, that we can create as close to objective recountings of the things that are happening in the world by following some simple rules. And one of those is, in this case, that our sources have to be used in the way that they are originally being used, or to give a totally hypothetical example you cant take a source about Ali's FGM that is unrelated to Sarsour's comment about her to write about Sarsour's comment. That the thing that keeps our own biases in check, and we all have them, me you all of us, are these rules that regulate what sources can be used and how they can be used.

I hope the same for you Arminden, I sincerely hope the people you know and care about stay safe, and I hope we can all soon go to sleep not being terrified of the news that is surely going to greet us in the morning. nableezy - 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I was notified about your Wiki trouble. I'd like to think that you can offer yourself some respite. This war will certainly damage and destroy many of those living at some geographical distance from it, it's as certain as it is sad, and there's no easy way out of it. Could you consider this whole Wiki trial a blessing in disguise? I'd like to see it stopped and reversed, but it probably won't. You can't wag the world by its Wiki tail, and being here might force you to stay submerged in this mental hell for even longer than you would anyway, and that's completely unhealthy. Or do you feel that it's the opposite, that it's a relief valve that helps you breathe? If so, tell me and I'll be quiet right away.
I can offer you a pact: if they keep you banned, I'll join you. I'll stay off anything I/P, or enWiki, or even Wiki altogether if it feels more honest. Or I'll contact you first before touching anything, even Romania- or geology-related. I mean it, and it might well help us both, and more than a little bit. What do you think? Thank you for considering it.
Have a peaceful New Year. Arminden (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think I’m really allowed to talk about it here tbh, the ban exemption is limited to appealing it. But I hope you don’t remove yourself from any topic, Wikipedia is better when you’re actively involved. But if you want to lend a hand at Al-Azhar Mosque that be cool, was planning on working on that when I get back home after new year's. nableezy - 17:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Outlaw Halo barnstar

The Outlaw Halo Award
In recognition of your admirable tenacity.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate this more than you know. Hope you stay well. nableezy - 02:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Nableezy. Just letting you know I've blocked the editor as a suspected sockpuppet for the time being, but do feel free to open an SPI later. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks, but doesn’t need much more. He signed as Cptnono as other socks have in the past. nableezy - 14:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 90 days.

You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.[5][6][7][8]

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hol up you’re going topic ban me for saying something that an uninvolved admin agreed with at AN, for answering a question on my user talk page, and for an edit you already cautioned me for? I get what you’re trying to do here but this is silly. nableezy - 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Are you taking about [9]? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
For the part about AN yes. nableezy - 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I included that because I specifically warned about that above, Additionally, you and Andrevan need to stop arguing. Your persistent arguing isn't convincing anyone else and it's disruptive to the rest of the discussions. Both of you need to stop responding to each other. I included the same exchange in my sanction of Andrevan.
Like you said, an uninvolved admin made the same point. They're was no need for you to get involved in yet another argument in yet another location with Andrevan. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
You’re basically saying that the substance of my comment doesn’t matter and that this apparently is a result of exasperation with me engaging with a specific person. I wasn’t bickering with Andre I was calling out misleading statements that were attempting to sanction another editor. That it was Andre making those statements had zero to do with my reason for responding. I was responding to the point made, independent of who made it. And, as a point of fact, when I made my point the uninvolved admin had not yet made the same point. I saw what appeared to be involved editors attempting to puff up support for a ban that I find to be poorly justified. And I dislike how involved editors can effectively railroad through a ban by making there appear to be more nefarious activity by a user and greater support for a ban than there actually is. So I said so. I was not under any interaction ban with Andre, I was not restricted from participating in an AN thread, and I did so reasonably and civilly.

The final diff in your list you have already used as a basis for warning me, so that leaves us with, post warning, my making a point at AN that an uninvolved admin basically agreed with, and then responding to an editor on my own talk page. I do not see how either of those justify any action at all. Like I said, I understand what you are trying to accomplish here, but trying to be even-handed when the conduct isnt even is not actually fair. nableezy - 18:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, can you please clarify if this ban applies to my role as mentor to Davidbenna, which basically involves answering when he asks if an edit is part of his topic ban or not. nableezy - 18:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue is with the consistent pattern of your editing, rather than any single specific diff. I included the diffs to show some recent behavior, but there have been dozens of instances of your behavior demonstrating a battleground mentality, an inability to keep calm in the topic area, and lashing out at other editors. The individual interactions are not enough, in and of themselves, to sanction, e.g. your needlessly inflammatory edit summary (which should have been the first diff, not a repeat of the discussion on your talk page) which you tacitly admitted was unduly harsh. The problem is that it has remained a common occurrence after warnings.
You were not interaction banned with Andre, that is true, and I was hoping that my warning would have been sufficient to keep you two from back and forth arguments. If that were the only issue then I would have gone with a topic ban, but that is not the case. As I've explained a few times, the disruptive arguing also makes it much harder to selectively target other disruptive behavior. That you couldn't, after this was explained and multiple explicit warnings, back off your tack of inflammatory commentary and arguing is a fair demonstration that you need a time-out from the topic.
You'll find that another editor sanctioned has the same general view of the situation as you do, only that they're the editor that was sanctioned to maintain even-handedness. I don't believe either of you is editing in bad faith, and people acting in good faith don't believe their behavior is a problem. That is why uninvolved third parties need to step in from time to time and impress the view from outside. One thing I've heard from editors on both "sides" is that all I need do is read the interactions on talk pages and the problems will be self-evident. I've spent many hours in the past couple weeks reading many words in many talk page discussions and what was evident to me is that several parties needed an enforced step back.
Lastly, the topic ban will prevent you from acting as their mentor on-wiki if it relates to ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
My needlessly inflammatory edit summary? The grammar *was* garbage, jfc. It was a run on sentence that meandered between topics. You’re banning me for an edit summary that is demonstrably true? Couldn’t back off from arguing? If people continue to make arguments at odds with our policies I’m supposed to just stfu so as to avoid an admin deciding the volume is too much? Whatever, I’ve always been clear on my view of the style over substance method of editing and adminning here so I won’t belabor the point. And I assume I am banned from informing Davidbenna as well, so might be a good idea to let him know he needs either a new mentor for the duration of this ban because his topic ban removal was dependent on a mentor to help him adhere to the extant one or he needs to adhere to the total IP ban that was lifted with mentorship. nableezy - 20:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't topic ban you for a single edit summary, I topic banned you for a pattern of behavior. Since you brought up style over substance let me try and explain my thoughts on that, and why follow editorial and behavioural best practice is one of the five key points outlined in alert/first.
When discussions, especially on very contentious issues, turn heated it becomes important to maintain a base level of cool headed interaction. There is already a pretty sharp divide between editors on the content, and any escalation makes it less likely that editors will be able to compromise. As things progress even small issues harden editors against each other, and any semblance of AGF goes out the window. Mistakes and misstatements are seen as deliberate, and things start being interpreted in the worst possible light.
As shitty as that is, it shittier that it spreads to other people in the discussions. Editors who's views align with one side or the other rush to back up allies. Then we start seeing a real battleground. Discussions almost immediately break along those lines, and there is even less chance of constructive discussion and compromise. Due to the huge, hostile discussions that arise the likelihood of anyone uninvolved taking part shrinks and you're left with the same editors having the same unproductive discussions. Since tensions are already needlessly high editors that try to join the topic area, especially those who don't have a strong emotional investment or POV, aren't likely to stay around because it's not worth the stress and bullshit.
Some of this is going to happen anyway when people have different points of view on an incredibly tense topic. The same thing is happening off Wikipedia too. The least that can be done is to try and avoid some of that through means that cost us nothing. I don't give a shit about bad words, lashing out once in a while, blowing off steam on a user talk page, or any of that. What I'm trying to do is stop disruption to the topic area caused by long term patterns of battleground conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ll notify you when my appeal is ready. Be a couple of days though. nableezy - 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
(tpw) I can't be sure whether I would have taken this action or not but a round of sanctions for a group of noisy editors might be best to allow the conversation to move forward. But in your case specifically, you must have seen something like this coming. I greatly appreciate your mainspace work and your input on talk pages when you provide cogent, policy-based rationales; that kind of editing is rare and extremely valuable in contentious topic areas. But you've spent a lot of time lately bickering with other editors and getting into lengthy back-and-forths over side issues. I know it sometimes feels like you have to reply to everything but perhaps you need to take a step back and see how that looks to an outsider. What would you think if you saw two editors at each other's throats if the context was American politics or pseudoscience, for example? Not expecting you to agree with me, just food for thought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
(tpw) I've been watching this play out over the last couple of weeks and I can honestly say I'm surprised the entire group hadn't gotten a temporary topic ban yet. Don't take it as an affront to specifically you nableezy. It's probably best in the long run if everyone SFR sanctioned just takes a step away from articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for a bit (there are plenty of other spaces on the wiki that could use your help!) Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Nableezy has done excellent work in this very topic area, and this sanction is unduly harsh given the diffs SFR cites (one of which nableezy themselves acknowledged, before the ban, wasn't their best choice of words).VR talk 04:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It’s basically a sanction for people disagreeing with each other. Can’t have that! It seems there was… “bickering”! A very serious matter, which creates all sorts of dangers on the encyclopedias and the talkies pages and must immediately be dealt with. Apparently, while there is no actual policy that says “bickering” is a sanctionable offense, nor any evidence that it harms quality of articles, it presumably signifies some kinds of “patterns of behaviors” and allows for the indulgence of an admin’s itchy trigger finger.
This isn’t a comment specifically on Nableezy. I looked at the diffs provided on several of the involved users that just got slapped around. Some of these users I agree with, others I disagree with, some of them I usually don’t care about. But in ALL of their cases the “diffs” being provided are weaker than gas station decaf coffee. They’re simply instances of fairly standard discourse in a difficult area that happens on Wikipedia all the time, that someone all of sudden decided was problematic and could be used as an excuse to hang some sanctions on.
It would really be better if admins avoided the “block them all and let God sort them out” approach to admin’ in contentious areas as it’s not only lazy and unimaginative but also does absolutely nothing to solve the existing problems. Volunteer Marek 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek, sometimes we have to do something. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the other way - the fact that in many instances you (as admins) don’t really need to do anything and your actions make matters worse not better - is a far more significant source of bias and trouble. So people were arguing. So what? Were nasty insults hurled? No. Was somebody doxed? No. Did it somehow depreciate article quality? No. Did someone even complain? Not really, not anymore than usual. Nothing bad actually happened, so why not let it be? Hands off, laissez faire! Let the folks work it out themselves. But that would give some admins little to do and would kind of reveal how inessential to the project-as-an-encyclopedia-not-a-social-media-site they are.
People argue about stuff all the time, especially on contentious topics, and what some admins refer to as “bickering” is simply normal human interaction through which matters are resolved. Hell, I was at an academic conference few months ago, and you simply would not believe the amount of “bickering” I saw there. If that had been Wikipedia, one of you would’ve probably tried to “sanction” them. Yet, all them profs and students went home with better working papers after all that bickering. This here? It’s just “I’m a hall monitor so I have to find reasons to give out demerits” stuff. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Its always the same problem, I say somebody is making shit up and the issue is that I said they are making shit up, not that they are actually making shit up. Somebody makes opposing arguments based on which side looks bad for each and its a problem I call it hypocritical, not that it is hypocritical being the issue. I call bullshit on something and its omg he said bullshit, never mind it actually is bullshit. Its a backwards mentality to any serious endeavor, but I guess we've all known that to be the case from the start. nableezy - 23:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yup. I know this well. It’s ok to make shit up on Wikipedia, it’s not ok to call it out. And this encourages a certain type of cynical manipulative editors who then proceed to make a total mess of a topic area. And then the admins are all like “oh my god this topic area is so contentious, you guys are so bad!” as if they weren’t the ones in good part to blame for enabling this nonsense in the first place. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Nableezy is not the only one to be sanctioned, I am too. It is worrying to realize that someone has got the wiki power to directly deliver an extremely severe and brutal decision, without any intermediate moderate graduated step. I received a life sentence today, any discussion was vained and led to nowhere apart a brick wall. I am sending Nableezy all my support as they were advocating npov and were able to locate "talking points" introduced in edits. Kudos for the good work. Iennes (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. I had a similar run-in with the core editor here. Faced with a boomerang, they stated they would step out of the ring, (which for other reasons, disenchantment with these games, I, the editor he was going for, did, while pleading lenience for Andrevan) and yet, once again . . Particularly disturbing is the remark

Actually, I'd be of a mind to NOT appeal and NOT need your response right now if it will help the other topic bans stick, so go deal with that first. I'll take a break for a while. Is there a statue of limitations on the appeal?

I.e. in brutal layman's language, I'll accept any suspension if it takes out Nableezy.
Like me, nableezy can be a lout from time to time, but unlike me, and many others here, including Andrevan, he is a master of method, severe yet, if it comes to punitive implications, lenient towards those he has had occasional to contest. Who are we left with, in an area plagued by POV obsessing, where cool technicians capable of neutral line judgements and not endless talk page waffle are as rare as hens' teeth?. Zero and Levivich. I think ScottishFinnishRadish, one of the most evenhanded admins ever to weigh in in this area, indeed an invaluable presence, but one should always 'distinguish'. Identical terms of banning for behaviours that come from editors with different profiles just happens to look like impatience, rather than close evaluation of each case at hand. I know that the fear is that such careful distinctions of evaluation would risk opening a can of worms with challenges of bias, but . . . Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I don’t fault SFR here, I understand why he did what he did and I think he’s doing his best, I just think the sanction is misguided. But I think the thing to do is just appeal it rather than keep going around the merry go round. But it’s a busy day in the real world for me so I’ll take a bit to get my appeal set. nableezy - 09:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Good for you, Nableezy, and good luck with it. I understand you don't care much about the weather? Drmies (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It's true, I can't stand the rain. nableezy - 23:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, from my perspective, 90 days topic ban does indeed seem too harsh especially looking at the diffs. This could have been solved with a warning first, at least, or a much shorter max 48 hour ban. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record, they were given a warning by SFR (after a reminder about the same issue) on December 25th: "Nableezy, this is now a warning. Stop this. Leave out the accusations. You can discuss possible misinterpretation or misrepresentations without direct personal commentary. This needs to stop."
Their response was "I think you’re making a mistake but I don’t think engaging further is likely to lead to anything positive, so noted.", followed by a longer post where they complained that they didn't think the warning was fair/justified (essentially, too long to quote in full). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There was a mere 1.5 day between the warning and the tban. I don't think nableezy did something during that period that was severe enough to merit a 90 day tban. VR talk 18:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish can you also provide an update on the sanction modification here? Dont want to be in a situation where somebody points back at this in 60 days. nableezy - 16:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Per the appeal at AE, I have modified the sanction to 30 days with a carve out to assist Davidbena [10]. Happy new year! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, same to you and yours, nableezy - 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for not leaving a note when I closed the AE thread. I briefly considered it, opened your talk page, and then figured you didn't want to hear any more about it. I figured wrong. – bradv 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
lol no worries. nableezy - 22:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the ping, I thought this was over.  // Timothy :: talk  09:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
No worries. nableezy - 10:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


Question about creating a new page

Hi, I noticed that there is no page about israeli human rights violations. In contrast there is one about human rights violations by the CIA. Neither Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel seem like the correct article to add this information.

At present, there are many scattered articles with information about said human rights violations such as here and in the "full articles" linked within.

I want to create a main page about israeli human rights violations, in Israel as well as the OPT. Has such a page been created before and then deleted? I don't want to waste my time if the page will just end up being deleted.

Thanks, and if you have a better place I can ask these kinds of questions I would really appreciate it. I already really appreciate your help so far. DMH43 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: NVM, I now see that there is a section deep in the page Human rights in Israel about the OPT, but even that is pretty poorly written. I will try to incrementally improve that page.

@DMH43: Nableezy is presently subject to a topic ban that doesn't allow him to answer questions like this. I suggest you ask someone else, such as Selfstudier. Zerotalk 04:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@DMH43: I asked Nableezy for his opinion on this previously and they indicated at the time that they thought it best to leave the material where it was although personally I would prefer a separate page. While we wait for an exit from "purdah", it seems like a reasonable idea to improve the material. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
FYI, editor @Crampcomes: created Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel which has promptly been nominated for deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier
That article gets off to a weird start? "According to the United States Department of State and international, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organization's…"
Irtapil (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Best discuss at the article talk page rather than here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to be petty, but …

I appreciate you using a dispute resolution measure as requested and (afaik) there is no requirement for neutrality, so this may just be a petty complaint by me, but:

„continuing with their campaign of removing all citations to EI while this challenge is ongoing.“

is not really a great phrasing.

1. I am not removing all, only the ones that are not appropriate. I have left some alone, and also left talk page entries where I believe that a removal is not or not clearly required. You were aware of me doing/claiming to do this, as that is my comment you responded to with the noticeboard link.

2. “campaign” may or may not be an accurate phrasing (I don’t think so, but I can understand why someone else could), but I would appreciate you striking and replacing it with something neutral. FortunateSons (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Pass. nableezy - 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a thanks

I am aware that you are topic banned from editing regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a duration of time, but I want to say that I greatly admire your contribution to Wikipedia over more than a decade.

I wish you the best and I hope to see your writing again in the future. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 09:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It actually expired but thank you I appreciate that very much. nableezy - 12:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It's only been 36 days since December 26, did they shorten it? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Yep, to 30 days. See here. nableezy - 17:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_54&oldid=1204764975"