Jump to content

User talk:Nableezy/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58

Your userbox

You've said a couple of times that I have "an inability to understand what the userbox is about". I'm keen that you enlighten me, then. To reiterate, the userbox:

  • Advocates "violent resistance"
  • Is in the colours of Hezbollah
  • Links to a discussion that is about userboxes expressing support for Hezbollah
  • Indicates there is at least one particular group the owner of the UBX would like to name, but cannot.

You can see how the logical conclusion of this is that whoever uses this UBX is, therefore, a supporter of Hezbollah but cannot have a UBX which says so. Indeed, this seems to be the obvious conclusion.

However, I seem to have "an inability" to understand it – so please let me know what the correct meaning of it is. Thank you. — Czello (music) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it a. recognizes the right to violently resists foreign occupation and aggression, aggression being a war crime, and said right being widely supported in the international community b. yes, because it is protesting the political correctness that at the time allowed for a userbox expressing support for one combatant, Israel, and disallowed expressing support for another, Hezbollah, c. yes, because it is protesting a discussion in which a group of largely, statistically speaking, white males from a small subset of countries to determine what political views are acceptable on a global project, and d. does not say I would like to be able to support any particular group, rather it again criticizes the idea that political correctness should be the barometer to determine what are acceptable views for a global project. Of note, currently a user would be allowed to express support for Hezbollah, WP:UP has changed in the decade I've had that box up. The userbox is about Wikipedia, not about Hezbollah.

Finally, are you of the view that say a supporter of Israel should be welcomed but a supporter of Hezbollah should not be? Why? What is the objective criteria that you are using to make such a determination? How do you figure that a user can express support for say Ukraine's right to resist Russian aggression and occupation but not Hezbollah's? nableezy - 15:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I thank you for your clarification that it's about Wikipedia policy and not support for Hezbollah itself. I remain unconvinced that is the entirity of its meaning, however.
I do not believe Hezbollah, Israel, and Ukraine to all be equatable in the examples you provided. Aside from the fact that two of these are countries while the other is an ideological organisation, the most major issue here is that Hezbollah is often recognised as a terrorist organisation. — Czello (music) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It is "often" recognized as that by a small set of countries. The overwhelming majority of the world does not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hell, more countries have accused Israel of committing genocide than have recognized Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. So your view is that some set of western countries should be the standard here? But the countries that have accused Israel of an ongoing genocide what, dont count? nableezy - 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, Hezbollah and Israel aren't comparable as one is a country and the other is an ideological organisation. It's possible to be an Israeli and even a patriotic one but oppose its actions. Hezbollah, however, is an organisation that is fundamentally antisemitic and seeks the destruction of Israel. I find it difficult to equate a supporter of Hezbollah to a Ukrainian resisting Russian imperialism – morally, at least. — Czello (music) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Hezbollah is a member of the Lebanese government, rendering moot that objection. What you find difficult is a function of your own background and biases, and this is a global project. Expecting others to agree to your personal views is not reasonable on a global project, sorry. As far as is not comparable, I agree. Only one of them has been accused of genocide by states and by at least one UN Special Rapporteur. It aint Hezbollah btw. nableezy - 15:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not it's a member of the Lebanese government isn't the issue. Again, you're conflating a nation with an organisation. Going back to your example of Israel – it'd be more accurate to compare them to Likud for that analogy to work.
Please don't assume my background and biases. Ultimately you're missing my point – comparing a nation to a political/ideological organisation (one which has bigotry built into it) is a fallacy. That's why support of an organisation like Hezbollah should not be accepted on this project. We have policies around similar movements. — Czello (music) 20:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Israel arose from an assertion a people, the Jews, were a nation, out of the political, social and economic organizations it then preceded to develop in another land. And much of this was driven by ethnocentrism (bigotry against the indigenous population) and a good deal of pre-state terrorism. That is the example set before organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, - created or facilitated directly as a result of Israeli actions (and indeed Hezbollah's leaders have often extended their hospitality to Jewish thinkers, like Noam Chomsky, for insights into the nature of the society they find themselves opposed to, which opposes them) - who, wrongly, are attempting something similar. Therefore your distinction falls flat on its face. Comparative historians know this. You don't see it. In any case, every few years people barge in here and complain pointlessly about this infobox, and as usual the objection will be shown the door. I suggest you edit articles, and not repeat a grievance over this that has a long if intermittent, and boring history.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
This, again, misses my point - and by talking about Israel we're descending into whataboutism. The userbox is about Hezbollah and ultimately endorses them. That is the issue. Any criticisms of Israel should be taken to where they're relevant. And I edit articles plenty, though thank you for the suggestion. — Czello (music) 21:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
You're free to not understand what has been said in reply to your point. Enough. If you want to get beyond dumbdowned clichés and actually grasp what Hezbollah is, read Augustus R. Norton's Hezbollah: A Short History,Princeton University Press, 2007 and Joseph Daher's Hezbollah: The Political Economy of Lebanon's Party of God, Pluto Press 2016, for starters. Then by all means use them and competent sources to edit Hezbollah-related articles, rather than backchatting here. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Im not assuming your background or bias only remarking that all of our biases and backgrounds are reflected in how we view things. nableezy - 21:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no place on Wikipedia that ones personal criticism of Israel or Hezbollah is appropriate, the point of the used box is that it is hypocritical and biased to allow for expressions of support for one but not the other. This is not a project that only considers western views as valid. If you think Hezbollahs ideology has bigotry built in to it but Israel and all of its Zionist political parties do not then good for you. I disagree with you, but that isn’t really all that important. This isn’t, last I checked, a Zionist project, or a pro-Western one. If it becomes one I’ll pack my bags, but there is no morally and intellectually consistent framing here that would allow for expressions of support for Israel and not for Hezbollah. Or Hamas for that matter. And as such my userbox exists to protest the imposition of what a group of largely white western men thinks is politically acceptable. I’ve explained the purpose of the userbox several times now, and as Wikipedia user talk pages are also not for soapboxing I’d like to stop discussing irrelevant things like ones personal views of hezbollah or Israel. nableezy - 21:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pyramids09 (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Shiny thingy for you

A cut but still vigorous watermelon
For defending UNGA resolution 37/43

Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle — hako9 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is My involvement with ARBPIA. Thank you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

accusations

Your repeated accusations of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming are incivil. A veteran editor should know that "the wrong version" is not gaming, it's standard rules of engagement. I started an RFC at the behest of the admin you summoned who confirmed my interpretation was reasonable. Please desist in your WP:ASPERSIONS. Andre🚐 19:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

They are only aspersions if they are unsupported by evidence. I cited the evidence. The admin actually said "in this circumstance there is clearly no consensus to include at this time". Yes, you are gaming, yes it is disruptive. Anything else? nableezy - 19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
No, the admin said, "start an RFC." Are you not aware of the long-time Wikipedia norm and procedure that an RFC means the status quo remains? Andre🚐 19:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Literally anybody can see that he said That said, in this circumstance there is clearly no consensus to include at this time. Someone should just start an rfc about the sentence in the lede of this article. If you are going to distort the record even now there really is nothing to speak to you about. Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. nableezy - 19:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Andre🚐 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to make edit

Nableezy, I am requesting your permission, under your vested authority of being my mentor, to make an edit on the Damascus Gate article, under the section "Names." The edit which I wish to make is as follows:

The Crusaders called it St. Stephen's Gate (in Latin, Porta Sancti Stephani), highlighting its proximity to the site of martyrdom of Saint Stephen, marked since the time of Empress Eudocia by a church and monastery which lies outside the city walls.[1] The only editorial change that I'm making here is that I'm adding the words "...which lies outside the city walls." I am also noting its source.

References

  1. ^ Wilson, C. (1988). Jerusalem, the Holy City (Yerushalayim, ha-ʻIr ha-Ḳedoshah) (in Hebrew). Translated by Eli Schiller. Jerusalem: Ariʼel. p. 45. OCLC 19202469.

- Davidbena (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally fine, hope you’re doing well David. nableezy - 13:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, here we are doing well, in spite of our many challenges, most recently from Iran. Spent at least one-half hour on October 1, 2024 in a bomb shelter with other people from my village, they and their kids and their pets.13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Hope you and yours stay safe David, take care. nableezy - 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
HahahaDavidbena (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
I've updated the draft taking into account your feedback. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)

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. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely bonkers. nableezy - 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Aoidh will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine

On 21 November 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Nableezy. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
  • Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not sending this yesterday

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 Selfstudier. Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Ill pray to whatever god that helps me break 80 (Im kidding God, please dont launch lightning bolts at me). Happy holidays to you and yours Ealdgyth. nableezy - 16:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_58&oldid=1266665215"