1RR Violation

Your edit[1] on the 2013_Tapuah_Junction_stabbing page seems to be in violation of 1RR. You deleted the description of terrorist, and then after it was restored, added addtional qualifications.

Please revert your own change, and get consensus on the talk page before making any further changes. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol what? What did I revert there? nableezy - 20:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) You deleted a long standing reference calling it a terror attack.

2) I restored this text

3) You added new text which had the effect of dramatically changing the meaning.

Reliable sources call it a "terror attack" and it was listed as such, you modified it to make it appear that only Israeli police were saying this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding attribution, per the cited source, that was not there previously is not a revert. Please read what a revert is. Thanks. nableezy - 20:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Contentious labels section of the Manual of Style would also apply, so that the nature of the stabbing should be presented as a point of view rather than a fact.     ←   ZScarpia   09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 1RR violation

First you revert my change[2].

Then immediately after you delete a bunch of text that I that previously added[3].

This is in net-effect a violation of the 1RR.

Please undo those latest changes.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to learn what the 1RR means. Consecutive edits are a single revert. As far as a bunch of text that [you] that previously added, if you dont make things up that the sources dont support others wont have to remove it. Maybe dont make things up that the sources dont support instead of asking that I restore some made up stuff that the sources dont suppot? nableezy - 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you dont understand what consecutive edits means? Ok, thats cool. Will be bringing up your edit-warring and violation of WP:ONUS tho, fair warning. nableezy - 23:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making threats

if you're going to report me, then report me. But I think your accusations are groundless.

But stop making threats implied or otherwise[4] [5]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. nableezy - 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

! Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC) and done.Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: This certainly appears to be WP:CANVASS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol Bob maybe just once consider the people who have 15-30x the edits that you do know a thing or two about the rules here. nableezy - 01:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it says:

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.

So, you're claiming that Selfstudier notified you in order to better achieve consensus, instead of stacking the deck in his favor? If so, so be, it but it does give every outward appearance of being canvassing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs: If you wish to complain about something you think I have done, please do it on my talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jfc, have you even read WP:CANVASS? Do you see the section on appropriate notification? Do you see where it has On the user talk pages of concerned editors. and then gives these two example Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article and Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Do you think youre going to ArbCom about a discussion I am involved in does not make me a concerned editor? Do you think I have not participated in previous discussions on this topic? Seriously, consider maybe you dont know quite as much about the rules here as people who exponentially more edits than you? nableezy - 15:03, 2 December 2021 (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 Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am perplexed by your comment at AE that Maneesh's statement males or females can identify as males or females or ... alien beings is a comment about genetic sex, rather than gender identity. How could this be so? Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is explaining that the article edit is about sex, not identity. I think that diff is his saying that what people identify as, regardless of what they identify as, is not relevant to the sentence in the article, as the sentence in the article is not about gender. I dont think that was the best way to put it, but I dont think the level of offense it seems to have caused was at all intended. I think you and Maneesh have largely talked past each other, with your edits relating to gender and his to genetics, and I think that has caused two well intentioned editors to come in to dispute. nableezy - 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I understand genetics, and Maneesh's arguments about genetics, perfectly well. But there is a non-semantic difference between making the point "this section (or article) is about genetics, so gender identity doesn't apply here", and "gender identity is an absurdity" (or. as Maneesh later stated, a "folk idea") "so the article shouldn't refer to it". It seems clear to me that the diff indicates the second thing, and only the second thing makes sense of Maneesh's subsequent edits.

Let's be clear: I would still disagree with the first thing, and the idea that the WP article Man should have all references to gender identity removed and that the only relevant context is genetic sex is absurd to me. But it is because Maneesh argued, and continues to argue, the second thing against both CIVILity and all mainstream scholarship on the topic that I found the pattern of edits disruptive and filed at AE. So your posting effectively erasing the difference between what Maneesh actually wrote, and the more policy-compliant argument that he "could" have made, seems inexplicable to me. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the argument on whether or not the article Man should primarily refer to gender or sex is one to be settled at AE though. I agree that the comparison made by putting in alien was improper, but I also dont think the level of offense people have taken was intended. I dont think he meant folk notion the way you seem to be taking it, I think he meant folk as in popularly understood, as opposed to scientific. He was saying when people say man or woman it is commonly understood to refer to gender identity, but when he did so in the article he was referring to genetic sex. nableezy - 03:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I suspect that I've spent more time parsing Maneesh on that meandering Talk page, I think I'll have a go as to what he is actually saying on that interminable section. (1) He believes that, in the context of that article, "man" means "male human" means "person with a Y chromosome". (He would give you some much more nit-picky statement of the latter, I'm sure, but that's the essential point.) (2) He believes that all intersex people are "simply" (definitionally) male or female by chromosomes, and that there is nothing especially complicated about intersex gender identities, because (3) he doesn't think gender identities matter for articles like Man and Woman, because people holding trans identities are an almost immeasurably small group, and because gender identities are basically incidental and arbitrary beliefs people may happen to hold, as opposed to male and female sex which are important for our physical and social lives.

I'm not going to diff all this now, but each and every step of this is based on Maneesh's actual diffs in Talk. I'm not saying that any editor who holds this worldview will necessarily be disruptive, but Maneesh (partly because of the strategies, as well as hyperbolic rhetoric, he uses to push this perspective) will continue to disrupt as long as he is allowed to make edits that affect GENSEX content and discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure you are right that you have spent more time with Maneesh, and you may well know his intent better than I do. Honestly, the only reason I said anything is it seemed that the justification for a ban was the holding of unpopular opinions, and as the holder of unpopular opinions in another area that concerned me. I dont know what else Maneesh has said about identity, but the edit and the justification brought up there read, to me, to be about genetic sex and attempting to skip past any identity discussion entirely. And that if you read his posts, at least the ones Ive looked at cited there, to be about gender and not sex then yes you can come to believe that this merits some sanction. But if you read it the way that it seems to me it was intended, then no not as much. nableezy - 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good close at COIN.[6] Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

You say in your close that " But removing an article that covers their actions in our article space is a COI by the consensus of this discussion." and later in your linked explanation "Which is why I did not find any COI for the actual topic, only on coverage of your edits related to it." Let me try to understand and clarify this. Nowhere on Wikipedia was the source used, AFAIK, to discuss my edits (right now I forget it at some point I was quoted in the capacity of the interviewee saying that the Warsaw incident was not a hoax but a fringe theory; if I was I have no particular concern regarding such an attributed quotation). So I'd like to clarify here - were you under impression that the source was used somewhere to discuss me, as a BLP, and I removed it for that reason? Let me link to the diffs of my edits from COIN, and note that the content I removed did not mention me: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. You can see for yourself that none of these edits are about myself. My understanding of the COI aspect is that a source I removed several times, the Haaretz article, does mention me in its body. But the content I removed from Wikipedia did not mention me. Do let me know if I am missing or misunderstanding something here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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