User talk:Nableezy/Archive 42

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Israel edits

Please stop making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. The subject of which country has sovereignty over Jerusalem is an ongoing international dispute. Wikipedia does not take sides in this, and so it is not shown which country Jerusalem is in. Also, please stop changing names of animals, locations, &c. from Palestine to Israel. Also, it is not advised to delete text showing that the Golan Heights is occupied, as it is factual that the land isn't legally part of Israel. It would appear that the only purpose of your account is to make such edits. --Beaneater00 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had the wrong account. --Beaneater00 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the vandal fighting. nableezy - 16:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Shawarma

Please check the Shawarma talk page. I left Wikipedia for about six or eight months because I'm sick of people removing reliably sourced material as they disagree with it based on their political opinions and am ready to try again. I have asked for this content to be restored. Innovative Username (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sheikh Badr

Hi Nableezy. Funny you found my edit - but it wasn't really mine. @Shrike: Shrike brought in that bit, unsourced, and removed the Patriarchate property bit, which is sourced, because he doesn't trust the Jerusalem Post. I fixed it by adding a cn tag to the retribution claim and putting back in the Patriarchate, so you see... Not bold, but orderly. That's me, sometimes. In general, I believe potentially important info should get a chance of being sourced, so cn tag for a while, before removing it. Now that it's gone, nobody will think of looking it up online in search of a source. Shrike mentioned smth about Lehi depopulating Sheikh Badr, it's quite specific, so maybe he does have his sources. If not, then sure, let it go. Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Shrike is free to restore it provided he has a source for it. Adding it without a source to begin with is not one of the options though. nableezy - 22:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

expropriate vs. confiscate

first thankyou for pointing out the badgering as a "Palestinian NGO". you are correct..however I hope we can both agree that while there are many Israeli NGO's critical of the Israel's policies, that there does not exist a comparable freedom of the press in Palestine.

Also, I will cease with my changing of the terms. I...am not a computer person, to put it mildly, so I have no idea even how to start a discussion or anything like that. If you can start a discussion for me, I would really appreciate that. I will cease changing of the terms for 1 month...please post on my talk page again if you have any updates.

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Zarcademan123456 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Will respond on your talk page. nableezy - 23:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (zarcademan123456)[edit source]

first of all, if this is the wrong place to post this i apologize. while i continue to disagree with the term "confiscate" Nableezy is absolutely correct...the occupation (I prefer disputed territories, but one must pick one's battles, lol) began during the war, not afterZarcademan123456 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC) copied and pasted from WP:AP, whatever that thing is. again, my apologizes for being computer illiterate.

Tel Hadid

Hi Nableezy. Thank you for trying to work with User:Jgraham1956. I never thought I'd see the day where you got accused of having a pro-Israeli bias, LMAO! I just accepted Tel Hadid from the draftspace, and the line In 1944 the village of al-Haditha had 760 inhabitants. It was conquered on July 12, 1948 during Operation Danny, following the conquest of Lydda and Ramle. And I think it needs a little help being reworded to meet NPOV. I wanted to see if you felt like working with me on this? Should be a relatively quick task. The current wording is just a little icky. Bkissin (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bkissin:, took a stab at it, added a couple of sources to that line as well. nableezy - 18:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I think that works. Thanks for your help. Even I felt uncomfortable with the terms conquest and conquered. Bkissin (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Muddled phrasing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anzah&action=history You said in your revision it was muddled phrasing...I forgot who, but someone pointed out to me that the “occupation” began during, not after the war...I was merely trying to highlight his difference Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The muddled phrasing was in how it gives its current status. The status currently is Israeli-occupied, dating back to middle of the war. nableezy - 22:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Israel occupation of Golan and east Jerusalem

One of the reasons I was told why the annexation and subsequent “rule” of the West Bank is not characterized as an “occupation” was because full legal rights were extending to the citizens under Jordanian rule. Seeing as full legal rights are extended to those in the Golan and East Jerusalem, can you help me understand why differing terminology is used? Also, Both countries annexations were similarly granted limited recognition. Does it have something to do with the consent of the governed? If there’s another forum for me to posit this question, please let me know thank you. I reached out to you because you seem knowledgeable on the topic of Israel and the conflicts. Thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I dont actually think that we should be saying Jordanian rule or annexation, I think it should be characterized as an occupation as it was largely unrecognized. But there was not any UNSC resolution negating the purported annexation for the Jordanians, which I assume to be distinction here. That Israel offered citizenship to the residents of EJ or the Golan (both of which widely rejected), has no bearing on if it is occupied territory. See for example

Roberts, Adam (January 1990), "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", American Journal of International Law, 84 (1): 60, doi:10.2307/2203016, JSTOR 2203016, Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

nableezy - 22:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq

Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree but “since” implies after the event, no? I only put “remaining so after the war” so as to not to include the ambiguity that “today” would, as “today” would imply continuously updating the article every day... Also? I think I am slowly starting to get the hang of all this Wikipedia policies....thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

“Beginning during the Six Day War, blah has been under Israel occupation??” Still feels a little clunky though...thoughts? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Got I think: “Beginning during the Six Day War, blah came and has remained under Israeli Occupation”. Thoughts? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY

Expand for more hypocrisy

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Get it this time?
You should try to internalize the point
if you werent paying attention

I suggest an experiment: Try taking these kinds of remarks out of your future posts and see if you can still get your point across. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hah! nableezy - 23:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just curious Wikieditor19920, have you altered the way you interact with other editors since 08 January, when you were advised to, "Dial down your hostility and snarliness towards people you disagree with?" ← ZScarpia 15:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Because right now its just two random people on the internet not liking what the source says, and that has been and will remain a completely ignorable objection.

Second time, Nableezy. Learn to treat those "random people" aka fellow editors w/ respect or this will be a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

lol, sure thing. It appears the golden rule has never quite been taken in, but if you act belligerent and disrespectful dont expect others to fawn over you. nableezy - 18:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

“During” vs. “since” the Six Day war...”remaining so after the war”

Given that the Israeli occupation started during, not after, the war, and that not including the last four words could imply that the occupation ended after the war, what phrasing would you prefer?

I will cease the phrasing you object to until after I hear back from you. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the Six-Day War, blah has been held under Israeli occupation. That both gives the time it started (67) and that it continues to the present. Remaining so after the war does not equate continues to remain so presently. nableezy - 23:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I started a new discussion because for whatever reason it is not appearing to update in the other discussion...

“Beginning during the Six Day War, blah came and has remained under Israeli occupation. Thoughts? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Beginning during is not really a usage I find natural. nableezy - 05:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What language would you prefer then? “Since” obviously doesn’t make clear that Israeli rule started during not after the war Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How about: blah came under Israeli occupation during the Six Day War and has remained in that state since? ← ZScarpia 11:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

works for meZarcademan123456 (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Golan heights

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majdal_Shams&action=history

I recognize that it may be more appropriate to have a note, and not “by all but US”...seeing as I do not know how to write a note, can you add one? Right now we are falsely advertising that the whole world does not recognize Israel’s annexation, while that is patently not true as current US foreign policy recognizes the Golan as part of Israel Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Just to thank you for your work at SPI. Despite how obvious the answer feels, putting evidence together like that clearly takes a significant effort. Well done. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And on a related note, should the answer be unclear I can put together behaviorial evidence. The nature of the aggressiveness is quite unique. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Racism in Arab Palestine" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Racism in Arab Palestine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Racism in Arab Palestine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I think you deserve another, that was great persistent work on the NoCal100 sock. Another timewaster bit the dust! Doug Weller talk 18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. The function of NoCal socks is to make an easy edit, close to a source, impossible to do unless you engage in absurdly extenuating 'discussion' for several days. Any old hand can spot him (I guess we all have our personal secret clues, not to be shared because, once public in a formalized investigation, they tip off the sockmaster who is still unaware of several traits that characterize his various identities -something his known educational background hasn't prepared him to twig to) him within a few edits from each new wiki career. Nothing can be done to stop the nonsense in its tracks, so one just has to pretend to AGF and take on an extra load of talk page tedium. Your work in this area is particularly meritorious because the legwork of checking through his edits, against dozens of other joker-in-the-pack handles, must be unbelievably arduous, impossibly boring. But without it, many, um, serious I/P editors would have left years ago. Your 'waste of time' saves us all months. Thanks from the heart.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol thanks guys. nableezy - 19:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thirded! ← ZScarpia 20:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fourth! (I know Nocal100 socks have chased away many from wp, alas, I think he has made many more stay and do extra work. Leaving would leave the field to lying cheats like him, and I most certainly would not like that to happen. He has been a great inspiration for me!) cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Samesies. nableezy - 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Quintupled! I was trying to think of a clever pun based on contract bridge (redoubled = times 4), but Huldra got in first. A great relief to be rid of yet another timewaster, Nableezy, your work is deeply appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Im sure he sees this and appreciates it as much as I do. Thanks yall, nableezy - 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A waft of fresh air has drifted in. Much appreciated. Zero^talk 00:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Nice work.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Great job!. Thank you so much Nableezy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WP NOTNEWS

Regarding your comment here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geva_Binyamin&action=history

IMO I see a lot of news on a lot of the other pages. For example every settler that burns a Palestinians olive tree, stuff like that. Your telling me that kind of information should not be there?

Hope I’m coming off in combative way just trying to understand thanks Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If sources cover the burning of trees as an important aspect of the village that should be covered. I wouldnt include each individual incident of a settler burning a tree though. Its supposed to be an encyclopedia article about a village, not a collection of events that have occurred. Look at, for example, a city like Chicago is covered. There is certainly material about crime, but not much on individual crimes. Even crimes that are themselves notable (eg Murder of Laquan McDonald) arent even mentioned there. nableezy - 15:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do have to press though, a terrorist attack inside the community (the only one during its existence), IYO, you do not think should be mentioned? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I dont quite think thats what that was. And I also dont think you should have reverted me here. nableezy - 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I also have to mention your revert at Elon Moreh...just because something can be doesn’t mean it should be. It’s more encyclopedic to have under history...especially when the same information is repeated within like 3 sentences Zarcademan123456 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

My two yen. I think assaults involving murder in settlements or villages constitute part of the history. After all settlement history is about land theft, ethnic cleansing, and then getting the IDF to shoot up or intimidate with night raids nearby villagers to get them to scram. We document that, and we should document violent assaults on them. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Zarcademan, you always place an m. before your wiki page links, I don't know why. I.e. we get this for example instead of this.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you edit on mobile thats the link you get. nableezy - 16:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article, it should include material that is covered in another section. To be honest, you seem to be attempting to relegate material that does not show Israel in the best light to some less prominent position, and you have been doing it in a number of articles. That material belongs in the lead. nableezy - 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If the material was universal in the lead then fine. But this is mostly about a) encyclopedic uniformity and b) the fact that that exact same information is repeated 2 sentences later. Your revert at Yabad was within 24 hour by the way... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedic uniformity is not a thing here. My earlier reverts at Ya'bad dont count as they were reverting a user restricted from editing that page. You shouldnt be reverting somebody without any edit summary or any comment on the talk page either. nableezy - 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ok, I’m understanding a bit now, little by little.

Regarding WP:NOTNEWS would the last paragraph on this page be considered for deletion then?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mazra%27a_al-Qibliya Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also here, last paragraph under the post 1967 subheading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjil#

I just don’t want to delete without consensus...excuse me for shamelessly “covering my ass” lol Zarcademan123456 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura_al-Qar%27 Zarcademan123456 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%27lin Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Under history at Ni’lin Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also here, middle paragraph under 1967-present

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Midya

I am only doing this just for my own clarifications of what the rules are thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modi%27in-Maccabim-Re%27ut

See 2014 funeral for kidnapped teens Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budrus#Location Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You should be bringing these up on the talk pages of each of the articles. I am not the arbiter of what happens in any of these articles. nableezy - 16:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

May I just add the news about the Geva Binyamin attack and put this to rest? Because if I start on talk page I am afraid there is going to be a big brouhaha... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the addition at Geva Binyamin. You can ask for more opinions on that talk page. But the way it works here is simple. If something you want to change is opposed you need to get a consensus for the change. nableezy - 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kk. Thank you for patience in explaining Zarcademan123456 (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Deir ibzi

Thank you for your revert from Dolev “residents” to “settlers”. Was definitively a case of Bias clouding judgement thx Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Today's Quiz

https://alt-arch.org/en/national-parks-in-jerusalem/ City of David National Park & Emek Tzurim National Park Your suggestion for location/short description? Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Shavuot

Just out of curiosity, what brought you to that article? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is in my watchlist and I saw an edit that was both incorrect and an ARBPIA violation. Just out of curiosity, is there something you want to say without being passive-aggressive? nableezy - 19:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and for why it is in my watchlist, can thank NoCal for that one. nableezy - 19:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I was just wondering considering that you never edited that article in the past. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It was in my watchlist from editing the talk page. nableezy - 20:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Maale adumim edit

Your rationale for reverting my insertion of “later proving to be inaccurate” was “that isnt what happened, peace now themselves corrected the data when it was released after they petitioned for it”

As I’m sure you would agree, correcting data implies previous data was inaccurate...if your issue is with how to word it, I agree it could be worded better, but the way it reads now highlights the inaccurate peace now report that 86.5% of maale adumim was private land...why not just report that 0.5% was/is private land, leave out the initial inaccurate report? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasnt their data that was inaccurate. It was the civil administrations incomplete data that was. Im fine leaving out the initial report. nableezy - 15:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

But honestly, this belongs on the article talk page, when there is an issue with an article edit the place to discuss it is there. nableezy - 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your right, more accurate to say that they accurately cited an inaccurate report.

Thx for heads up regarding appropriate place to post Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

O and regarding Tel Aviv expansion as we’ll Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, I recall you once helped us turn the picture in Aqil Agha (from facing right to facing left), I wonder if I could ask you to do the same for Pierre Jacotin? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Pierre Jacotin flipped.jpg nableezy - 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!! Huldra (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Civility

Nableezy, please be civil. Including in edit summaries. Reverting a veteran editor with the edit summary "rv nonsense edit", like you did recently at Jabel Mukaber, is not civil. It is especially surprising to see you call the edit you reverted "nonsense" in view of your own opinion on this subject, as you expressed it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Change_"rule"_to_"occupation". Debresser (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see the golden rule isnt quite your thing. nableezy - 22:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said on the talkpage of JM, I think of myself as a generally civil person. Although I suppose I have my lapses too. Compared to you, I consider myself an angel. In any case, if you had something specific in mind, please feel free to point my attention to it, here or on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

lol, thats nice. Conceited and fairly uncivil in its own right, but nice nonetheless. nableezy - 14:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, further, your battleground behavior, as in removing a tag within minutes is extremely inappropriate. You didn't even give me a chance to discuss on the talk page now that I can't revert you, knowing the rules of ARBPIA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You have to make an attempt to address an issue before tagging the article. If you are unwilling to go through that effort then you dont get to deface an article with a tag based on your dislike of its contents. Oh, and you still havent even made a token attempt at addressing the issue, an hour later. So that bit about within minutes rings rather hollow here. nableezy - 18:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I tagged it and I see now that it's not worth it considering the number game, like always. It's clear to all as I mentioned in my edit summary that you can't use Amnesty International as a source for something in Wikipedia's voice, especially for something in Wikipedia's voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats cool. A constructive attempt to fix any perceived issues comes before a tag. And Amnesty International is a fine source on the topic of international law and human rights. nableezy - 20:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, just curious, what do you think of people making comments on the talk pages of editors they have demanded stay off their own? nableezy - 20:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I asked Huldra about this before but she didn't answer me, do you know? Are there standard infoboxes for settlements in WB (Palestine or Israeli settlements)? Example, if you look at Barkan Industrial Park, this is an Israeli settlement (of type industrial zone). The infobox being used is based on this template {{Infobox Israel village}}. Gevaot is another one, I changed some parameters, someone changed them back and I have changed them again but it seems to me the problem is the use of the wrong infobox template (supposed to be only for settlements in Israel). Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I had been asking myself the same question. There is Module:Location map/data/Palestinian territories, which is where Module:Location map/data/Palestine redirects. So basically, every time anybody uses "Palestine" it really uses "Palestinian territories". And then there is Module:Location map/data/West Bank, which is what I think we really should be using. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks like another one of those Palestine -> State of Palestine things (it exists legally and has a claimed territory so your remark at Gevaot is inaccurate but you knew that already, right?). In any case, that is only the pushpin element and not the entirety of the infobox.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request closed

The Palestine-Israel articles 4 clarification request, to which you were listed as a party, has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 23:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, nableezy - 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Centralised discussion

At AE, you wrote "RFCs at a centralized discussion closed by an uninvolved admin should have some force here". There are several things wrong with that:

Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment #Publicizing an RfC and check the link there to Centralized discussion. Do you agree that does not include the Wikiproject, and that the RfC was never publicised centrally?
Do you disagree that WP:CONLOCAL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." or do you disagree that it applies to WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration?
S Marshall is not an admin, but as they are a very experienced, uninvolved editor, that actually doesn't matter.
Nobody has claimed that the RfC has no force at AE, but you're wrong to think that attempting to enforce a content consensus is an exemption from a relevant WP:AC/DS behavioural rule like 1RR. Please let me know if you maintain that it does.

Now, would you be kind enough to have another think about what you've written at AE, please? --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadnt realized it was closed by a non-admin. I dont see what consensus is overriding any wider scale community consensus. There is no wider scale community consensus on the content at question in the RFC. So that doesnt really factor into this at all. But yes, IPCOLL is the centralized location for content discussions that affect a range of articles. It has always been that. It was that for WT:Legality of Israeli settlements, it was that for WP:WESTBANK, it was that for this. I dont think a non-admin should be closing content RFCs in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions, but besides that point no I dont think what I said at AE is wrong. And I very specifically said that RFC shouldnt be enforced through edit-warring, and that there was a 1RR violation. So no, I have not said that the RFC excuses violations of a general sanction (the 1RR is a direct general sanction, not a discretionary one). So as I have not actually claimed that attempting to enforce a content consensus is exempt from the 1RR I am not sure what I need to correct besides the bit on S Marshall not being an admin (but you yourself says that doesnt matter so meh). nableezy - 23:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Every ArbCom decision carries the consensus of the whole community, as do all of our policies and guidelines. Those are the wider-scale consensuses on the content in question and the local RfC cannot override them. So, yes, it does factor into this.

No, IPCOLL is not centralised discussion, so is only a local consensus. Sort that out in your mind, and you should be able to spot what is wrong with what you said at AE.

You wrote: "if an editor is ignoring that explicit consensus, whatever that consensus may be, that editor should be reverted and sanctioned for disruptive and tendentious editing. That too is prohibited by the arbitration decision, and I would have thought been taken much more seriously than a 1RR violation".

The arbitration decision is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles #ARBPIA General Sanctions and there is no prohibition corresponding to your claim. There is, however, this:

"One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

And if you're trying to tell me that your assertion of "disruptive and tendentious editing" provides an excuse for ignoring 1RR, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. As an uninvolved admin, I an expected to sanction a breach of that 1RR restriction as an AE action, and I cannot accept reverting a breach of a local consensus as an exception to that. I'm not in the habit of taking violations of ArbCom-imposed restrictions as less serious; I strongly suggest that you take the same line and don't attempt to belittle them. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, I did not say that the RFC excuses a 1RR violation. Im not sure where you are seeing it, and I invite you to re-read what I actually did write at AE. Again, RFCs at IPCOLL have carried with them the weight of consensus across articles for over a decade. I dont think any of that is actually disputable, and if you can actually quote where I said that "disruptive and tendentious editing" provides an excuse for ignoring 1RR I would love to see that. What I wrote is that if an editor edits against that consensus then that would be tendentious and disruptive editing. And yes, that is indeed prohibited under the arbitration decision. What I said was that if an editor edits against that consensus they should be reverted and reported. I did not say that users should violate the 1RR in reverting them. I did not say users should edit-war. I have no idea why you think I said any of those things. I hope my thoughts are clearer, and if not Ill try to explain them again. But I dont quite see how youre arriving at the conclusions you are about them. nableezy - 04:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as centralized, Im sorry but not everything in this world is a wikilink. I used "centralized" in the normal English usage of that word. Not as some RFC multiplier. IPCOLL has been where those of us who edit in the topic area have gone to create RFCs about things that could cause a large number of articles to be changed. It has been the location where some of the most intractable disputes in the topic area have been solved over the years, including the legality on Israeli settlements material and on West Bank vs Judea and Samaria. So sure it is not a WP:Centralized discussion. It is however the place where we have been settling issues with RFCs over the last dozen or so years. nableezy - 05:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you think you didn't write "if an editor is ignoring that explicit consensus ... That too is prohibited by the arbitration decision, and I would have thought been taken much more seriously than a 1RR violation", then you've far more problems than me criticising you for writing it. You think "ignoring explicit consensus" should be "taken much more seriously than a 1RR violation". That's never going to fly and you're on thin ice arguing in favour of that view. --RexxS (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no, I did write that. And yes, disruptive editing should be taken much more seriously than a 1RR violation. Disruptive editing should result in months-long to indefinite topic bans. A 1RR violation? What does a 3RR violation result in? One of these things is a technical violation of the balls and strikes rules. The other is a purposeful attempt undermine the very foundation of what this whole place is built on, consensus. But HELLO, that does not mean one should edit-war to combat disruptive editing. Nobody said that. Not here, not there, not anywhere. Thin ice? Excuse me, but are you threatening me because Ive taken a view you disagree with? nableezy - 15:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, then you've far more problems than me criticising you for writing it isnt exactly what one would call a civil tone. Believe me, I too can write responses where the condescension is palpable. Ive even written some of them in this very section. However, Ive erased those messages before saving the page and wrote ones with a more measured tone instead. Id appreciate you returning the favor. nableezy - 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Eric Garner

Hey I added a section to the talk page for Eric Garner. I think the part that reads “despite chokeholds being banned in NYPD since 1993” belongs in the body of the article rather than the intro. It’s undoubtedly worth having in the article. I intended to add it to the body when I took it out and I’m glad you reverted it. Let me know what you think. Thanks.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it does not belong in the lead and will respond there. nableezy - 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

1rr

Nableezy, I think this might be a 1RR violation. [1] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, that isnt that section, and can you count the hours between 20:00 June 30 and 22:00 July 1 for me one more time? nableezy - 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial reverts count in 1RR

You are in violation at Murder of Rina Shnerb. Please self-revert while you still have the opportunity to do so. Thanks and good luck. El_C 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How so? My edits are 26 hours apart. nableezy - 04:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. El_C 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted photos

Dear Nableezy, I am currently exploring the JNF archive photos in Commons & adding photos of interest to various articles. I have just had two of my contributions removed by an editor that I see is being problematic. The first was a gallery of several JNF publicity posters which I inserted in the JNF article. I accept it might be a bit much and have put back a single image. The second is a lovely image of downtown Haifa which I would like to put back and am not sure how to proceed. I think it is important because the tower is still standing (but not the minaret). What should I do?Padres Hana (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

update - please ignore. I acted in haste. The editor was only relocating the Haifa photo. And I agree the JNF gallery was a bit muchPadres Hana (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pro-Palestinian_editors_editing_in_consort_to_push_POV. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Aroma Stylish

If you want to take responsibility for any of the reverted edits you are free to revert me. But this isn't going to result in any changes on my part so let's end this now

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why do you revert the user's edits that were constructive?! ImTheIP (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY and WP:BMB. nableezy - 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@NableezyI see nothing in either page that requires or even justifies reverting good edits by banned editors. Please be more specific. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Then read them again. nableezy - 21:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP By the way, there is nothing that forbids other editors from repeating the original edit. On their own responsibility, of course. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe editors concerned would ask themselves if they would risk restoring edits of a banned user?GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Some edits were indeed constructive. I'm not sure how to approach this matter. Maybe experienced administrators would advise?GizzyCatBella🍁 19:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think reverting all edits regardless of the substance is the way to go.GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And if the appeal is accepted [2], then what?GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The contributions of socks are worthless, even if they're not.Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Using a common-sense, regardless of what is written already here WP:DENY WP:BMB - if a user was forbidden from contributing, so all his further edits while hiding under a sock account are unlawful. Yea, I believe Nableezy chose the correct approach.GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Even a sock is capable of making good edits, so it is wise to look before reverting. On the other hand, someone misrepresenting themselves can't be trusted to not misrepresent their edits, so a deleted sock edit should not be reinserted without a fresh look at the source. The criterion for keeping a sock edit should be that an editor in good standing is willing to take responsibility for it. Zero^talk 01:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)