Jump to content

User talk:Nableezy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My draft for a AN appeal

Nableezy and User:Euryalus, this is for your information. I am preparing a draft for an AN appeal to my limited Topic ban. So far, here is the draft:
I, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), after successfully appealing my AE Topic ban on 16 May 2023, was appointed a mentor to counsel and assist me in my edits in the ARBPIA area (see here). After editing under this capacity for more than a year, I wish now to appeal my long-standing limited topic ban that was made some years earlier (which you can see here). Having the liimited ban lifted will enable me to return to editing in the ARBPIA area without limitations.

For a record of my past offenses, here is a list of former discussions which ended in either a block or a topic-ban:

  1. 2 August 2018 "frivolous ANI report"
  2. 13 August 2018 (topic ban)
  3. 23 February 2019: topic ban lifted
  4. 6 May 2019 (new topic ban).
  5. 21 November 2019: appeal to rescind the ban was unsuccessful
  6. 18 August 2020 (placed under narrow topic ban)
  7. 2 September 2021 (one-month block for canvassing)
  8. 29 January 2022 (broad topic ban), which ban was lifted on 16 May 2023 (as shown here) when I was assigned a mentor in the ARBPIA area, but leaving in place my narrow topic ban.

I am fully aware that my history of punitive measures taken against me by the community was started by my own short-sightedness in being quick to jump to judgment against my fellow co-editors in the ARBPIA area, whom I accused at first of "stalking". These accusations, as they later came to show, were proven inaccurate. I have since worked with the same editors on improving a number of articles in the ARBPIA area. Moreover, I am now fully aware that all edits made by the general consensus of all editors, especially of those holding different political views and who belong to different political spectrums, contribute to the overall uncensored preservation of history and of general knowledge. This is my honest view. I have worked in the past year with Wikipedia editor Nableezy who has opened my eyes to this realization, even though we hold different political views. I assure my fellow Wikipedia editors and those here arbitrating this case that I will continue to consult the views of others before posting a controversial edit in the ARBPIA area.Davidbena (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly support an appeal, and I cant imagine any of us in the topic area would oppose it. I'm not certain this is the ideal statement, I can try to give some ideas, but tbh it's almost 80 degrees today for me at the end of October and so I'm going golfing, so it would have to wait a bit for me to work through some thoughts later. Hopefully I can shoot the temperature like I do when it's 100. nableezy - 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think it be wise to list all the discussions and bans, you dont want people to say oh he's not being forthright. So each of the discussions Joe Roe listed here along with the ban from the Fram report here and then finally the appeal that resulted in the mentorship.

Next, I think the thing you really need to commit to is not questioning other's motives during discussions. If you recall the initial ban, it was imposed because of a report you files against Huldra and myself in which you were certain that our opposition to some edit was coming from some nefarious motive. A commitment to discuss content and not personalities would, I think, go a long way in addressing the cause for the initial ban. Other than that I think the message above reads as honest and I would hope that other editors agree. nableezy - 15:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidbena; I think Nab's advice here is good; start with making a link to all former discussions which ended in a topic-ban etc. You could do that on a subpage; and Nab(?) and I could add if you are missing any.
As for lifting the topic-ban itself; honestly, I am on the fence about how I would vote. I would like to vote for lifting it, but I haven't forgotten what happened last time I did so ("with some trepidation"). As I have told you before; when you edit 20th & 21th century stuff, you have had a tendency to "loose your cool". IMO; editing such areas needs you to step 10000 miles back from the subject. And I am unsure if you are able to do that. (I sincerely hope time will prove me wrong!)
Also; what Nab says about "personalising" conflict; it really shouldn't matter if anyone is a Jew, a Palestinian, an Arab or an Eskimo, or who you are married to, or even what level of education you have.
Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Huldra:. I will take your advice. I have since learned that every person who contributes anything in this world, especially on Wikipedia, is on a special mission sent by God. It doesn't matter who we are, or what religion or ethnicity we belong to. In Israeli/Palestinian issues, it is all one continuous history, interlocked. That is my honest view. I appreciate your work in the Palestinian issues, just as I appreciate my own work in Israeli history, both old and new. Everything has its place. I have learnt on Wikipedia to appreciate other views and to be more open to them, even when I disagree. I will not force my own view upon others. That much I can assure you.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: I hope you can also edit with those of us who don't believe in a God! (I am an agnostic (in my brain)/atheist (in my heart));/ cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I can! Perhaps I can also convince you that God exists and is everywhere (smile).Davidbena (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you would be doing a better job than my dear aunts (who tried the same and failed), Huldra (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HahahaDavidbena (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, my appeal to rescind the limited topic ban has been posted to AN, which you can access here.Davidbena (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for all the work you've been doing to identify and eliminate LTA sock accounts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Bank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Nabi Yunis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza City

Images of war-inflicted damage are not suitable for city infoboxes. Again, cf. Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Kharkiv etc. infoboxes: these are all cities that are heavily damaged by Russian artillery and airstrikes but we only use pre-war images in the respective infoboxes. GreatLeader1945 TALK 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatLeader1945 That seems to be personal opinion, an opinion the talk page rejected previously. You need to revert your revert as well as learn that your personal attack of an edit summary is unacceptable. nableezy - 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about possible 1RR violation

Hey @Nableezy, I'm checking to see with you if this is indeed a 1RR violation as it's from the same user you notified of this a while back.

They added highly contentious POV-pushing content, this content was then reverted, then they reverted it back again, and then they also reverted another part of the page shortly thereafter.

This seems like a pretty clear 1RR violation but I'm not sure. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive reverts with no intervening edits by another user are a single revert. nableezy - 01:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the clarification. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nableezy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "massacre"

I agree with you that there is a double standard with the use of the term "massacre" in article titles.[1] I have written Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles (abbreviated as MOS:PIA) to resolve that specific issue, and I want to work with you on getting this implemented. A rules-based approach will benefit the topic area by allowing us to make arguments based on a common understanding of the rules. Writing those rules into a guideline will make it easier to achieve consensus in the future.

Ideally, we would collaborate on a policy banning the term "massacre" from titles and then co-sponsor a proposal to adopt this policy at WP:Village pump (policy). In the future, when editors feel like there is a double standard across multiple articles, those issues can be brought up at the talk page of the MOS instead of fighting over precedents at every article or noticeboard or going to WP:AE. If a standard or rule is a guideline, closers can implement WP:NOTAVOTE more easily and admins can deal with editors blatantly disregarding the standards. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think banning except in the case of an actual common name, and name meaning an actual name of an even, not just a description of it, is the correct answer here. There are things like the the Hebron massacre or the Qana massacre that are so widely known by those names they should be titled that. Then there are things that are described in a number of ways, sometimes overwhelmingly but sometimes not, that don’t themselves have a name but rather a descriptive title. I think for descriptive titles it should be no massacre in titles. That would also make it so basically everything in the last year besides probably Reim and the Flour massacre would be titled massacre. Things that have a name should use that name. Things that we describe should have a less emotive title. nableezy - 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no SFR, arguing that while we do not have such a rule that we should follow the precedent of our existing move requests is not a WP:POINT violation, it is recognizing the world we live in is not the world we would like it to be. POINT requires disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and that isn’t disrupting a thing. nableezy - 00:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are some guidelines we can give for what constitutes a "common name" beyond what's at WP:COMMONNAME? I can agree in principle to that exception. I would add that a name should be used beyond just Arab or Israeli sources. So, the sources used to establish a common name should reflect a broad perspective.
Additionally, it'd be better to use historical examples with broad agreement in the guideline rather than ones from the present conflict, given that both explain the point effectively. So, the 1929 Hebron massacre or Qana massacre are good examples (especially as they're called such by both Arab and Israeli sources), but I wouldn't include the Reim or Flour massacres because there's still activity on trying to move them. The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is also a good example, but I would like to keep the number of examples in the guideline evenly balanced between both sides. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the draft taking into account your feedback. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was this recent discussion Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: It seems like there's some form of consensus over the term "massacre" in titles. The issue is we can't easily cite that consensus. Ideally, an editor can just !vote Oppose per MOS:PIA, massacre isn't a common name, and the closer can ignore arguments that don't demonstrate how massacre is a common name. It's more difficult to cite a random discussion or another RfC; Nableezy is currently at AE over whether or not their behaviour was POINTY, POV-pushing, or legitimate.
It's easier to determine if someone consistently advocates against prior consensus when it benefits "their side" if we write down what that consensus is.
Also, feel free to discuss on the talk page of the draft. Agreeing that sources should be required to add categories such as "massacre" or "war crime" is another uncontroversial principle I think we can get behind. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CPUSH can only be determined with proper evidence, I don't see what that has to with anything here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: The AE thread is partially over inconsistent usage of the term "massacre" in article titles and has now been referred to ARCA. A guideline on when to use the word "massacre" in article titles would address some of the issues that started that thread. Nableezy's input is important because a style guide on the Israel-Palestine conflict should be a collaborative effort between all editors. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

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#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al 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, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&oldid=1256388774"