→Funny: cmt |
|||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
What? I am not allowed to present evidence that a user is engaged in sockpuppetry? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
What? I am not allowed to present evidence that a user is engaged in sockpuppetry? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
{{unblock|I would like any reasonable person to say exactly how [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100]] falls within the scope of an I/P topic ban.}} |
{{unblock|I would like any reasonable person to say exactly how [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100]] falls within the scope of an I/P topic ban.}} |
||
Note to reviewing admin: this block is an arbitration enforcement action and may not be undone except through consensus at [[WP:AE]]. The topic ban was violated because the edits concerned supposed sockpuppetry in the I-P conflict topic area; see the recent clarification concerning the scope of topic bans at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FWest_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria_30_November_2009]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 06:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:41, 4 January 2010
For reasons which I apparently will be blocked for if I write them down. Bye.
Shameful
This user was a very fine, upcoming editor of considerable promise, who, perhaps because of those qualities was mercilessly harassed, victimized, and driven to make one unguarded remark out of pure frustration, and fear that his block would inconvenience his fellow workers. He did little that could, in any human society, be considered troublesome. He did much to encourage disenchanted editors to renew their confidence in wikipedia as a project. Shameful, deeply shameful. For those who still read books, Melville's Billy Budd contains the moral.Nishidani (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thats a lie, this user was an idiot who stupidly expected that fair play and transparency should rule. He should have instead been coordinating his moves with like-minded editors, creating countless sockpuppets, and relying on "sources" that no reasonable person would call "reliable". He should have played the game, and you can bet he would have "won" if he had. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Socks wouldn't have helped, but some core topics on en.Wikipedia are way slanted at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really like you Gwen Gale. I've admired the way you handle a lot of things around here. But unfortunately, not all admins are like you. And socks did help to get User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:Meteormaker, User:Pedrito and User:Nickhh banned. I'm pretty sure there are still more of them around too. And they do help to contribute to the mess at many articles and frustrate many a good faith editor into leaving altogether. Sad, but true. Tiamuttalk 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Socks wouldn't have helped, but some core topics on en.Wikipedia are way slanted at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thats a lie, this user was an idiot who stupidly expected that fair play and transparency should rule. He should have instead been coordinating his moves with like-minded editors, creating countless sockpuppets, and relying on "sources" that no reasonable person would call "reliable". He should have played the game, and you can bet he would have "won" if he had. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Double standards rule wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Double standards? What are you basing that off of? I think you will find we treat all users who make legal threats in a consistent manner regardless of who they are. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have no idea what it is you are talking about. None of this is about your block of me. Kindly take this page off your watchlist. nableezy - 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Forget it Nab. I have a paranoid reading of what occurred, but like all paranoid readings, it may just be true, but also may simply link dots that are there but can be linked in other ways, to show it was simply a cascade of coincidentals that took its own momentum. Administrators don't really know what is going on, and it is not part of their brief to know. They act according to their respective readings of whatever data comes their way. The damage is done. I'm tired of this place, which simply will not let people edit articles unless they devote a huge amount of their time to bickering, snooping for stuff to 'get' people, and letting themselves be tied up hand and foot in chronic wikilitigation. Give it a rest.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- True that, just need to break the habit of refreshing my watchlist every few minutes. nableezy - 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Me too. Tiamuttalk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I feel bad - in a way it's all my fault. If I hadn't posted on the Jonathan Cook AfD all those weeks ago, we wouldn't be here. Although, as we know, nor would NoCal and his buddy accounts have been outed. All actions have consequences that seep through eventually I guess, as Zhou Enlai noted of course when he supposedly said of the French Revolution, when asked about its impact - "it's too early to tell". --Nickhh (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- You shouldn't feel bad Nickhh. If anyone's at fault here, it's me, for filing an WP:AE request against Cptnono after he called me a "a dirty liar" and said I shouldn't be editing here because I have Palestinian stuff on my user page. That complaint led nowhere of course. And in short order, he filed two AE complaints against Nableezy's, the first of which led to the first imposition of a two-month topic ban, and the second of which, while declined, was followed up with a positive closure of Epeefleche's filing of another complaint against Nableezy for the edits to Cook AfD from a month ago with a renewal of the topic ban. Even though that complaint had already been ajudicated by tznkai as harmless. I'm so sorry Nableezy. Still feel guilty about it. I keep forgetting that the complaints process just isn't fair and will likely result in us being banned. I don't know how I could forget that given what happened to nickhh, nishidani, et al., but I guess my naive hope in justice springs eternal. Tiamuttalk 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I feel bad - in a way it's all my fault. If I hadn't posted on the Jonathan Cook AfD all those weeks ago, we wouldn't be here. Although, as we know, nor would NoCal and his buddy accounts have been outed. All actions have consequences that seep through eventually I guess, as Zhou Enlai noted of course when he supposedly said of the French Revolution, when asked about its impact - "it's too early to tell". --Nickhh (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Me too. Tiamuttalk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll impose the severest sanction I can think of on all of you to get you to leave this place for a while, for your own good health. No one listens to people who complain, especially when their complaint is legitimate. One has to confide in the good offices of passing Samaritans, for an eventual remedy. I suggested to others to read Billy Budd. Both of you should (re)read it, and then Strindberg's 'Dance of Death' (Dödsdansen) before even thinking of checking out these pages again. It should take a few days, is conducive to not smoking, since they are both gripping, and, once one gets that habit, wikipedia seems less interesting as a distractive read. Then Moby Dick, but purely for the huge comedy. Alternatively for Tiamut, Patrick White's 'Chariots of Fire', if she can find a copy in her part of the world. Laughing makes one's jaws incapable of dragging on any noxious weed. I myself have undertaken to reread Grimm's fairy tales. I need to soak myself in real horror, and not the virtual macabre of wikidramas. Best to you all for 2010 (we shouldn't have exchanged NY wishes of AK's page. It must have looked like a conspiracy of a 'fray of fools' (to use a phrase I read in a recent edit summary) and galvanized the molecular logic of paranoidal forces into remedial action!Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- "No one listens to people who complain, especially when their complaint is legitimate. One has to confide in the good offices of passing Samaritans, for an eventual remedy.".
- Completely true. But there are solutions. Look at the way an excellent editor such as SlimVirgin succeeds in writing articles and lead them to FA status despite the "sitution"... I still cannot understand how she did with 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla and Muhammad al-Durrah incident !!
- I still wonder what is the recipe...
- Ceedjee (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well my friends ... I tried to stay retired in solidarity over this piss poor decision. But I couldn't help it, I had to come back to editing, after seeing what kind of POV pushing was taking place in our collective absence. I'm still outraged and thinking of filing a formal appeal. Though I'm not sure what good it will do given how broken the checking process is once someone's name has been blackened by an admin too stubborn to admit his error.
- Ceedjee, don't be too sure that SlimVirgin will have any success getting the articles you mentioned up to FA status. There are too many reviewers with a strong POV of their own that they have serious difficulty checking at the door and she's already garnered one strong oppose. Still, she does manage to improve many articles. I think you can chalk part of it up to dogged perservance. Some of the other factors are perhaps better left unsaid. Tiamuttalk 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- True that, just need to break the habit of refreshing my watchlist every few minutes. nableezy - 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Double standards? What are you basing that off of? I think you will find we treat all users who make legal threats in a consistent manner regardless of who they are. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010
After things calm down, I hope you reconsider your retirement. Although you and I have had differing viewpoints on some articles, I have always appreciated your input and contributions to article discussions. Regards, --nsaum75¡שיחת! 02:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know, but thanks for the kind words and take care. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm bummed
Nothing more to say, really. You'll be missed. IronDuke 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. You get Sandstein to admit that his decision was retarded, and he has to use that word, Ill come back. nableezy - 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the merits of Sandstein’s ban, I can tell you that in my experience with administrators I’ve had bad interactions with, their willingness to admit error is very, very low. There’s really nothing to be done about it. Quitting is always an option, and entirely understandable, but… it’s your wiki-funeral, but I can’t see the harm in just taking a break and then in a week or so reassessing your feelings after that time. IronDuke 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- The ban is not the issue, it is the resistance after having the rest of the information in front of him to admitting the mistake. He originally said that the two month ban is in order because I "repeatedly" commented at an AfD that was covered under my topic ban. After been given the evidence that AfDs were to be treated as talk pages he now cites two diffs of me restoring other users comments with requests that people go to AE instead of enforcing arbitration decisions themselves as evidence of disruption and violating the topic ban. Yes, it is a technical breach, but I, purposely, did not actually make any comment about the AfD until my talk page ban expired, I just had a problem with highly involved users thinking that they are in a position to enforce an arbitration decision. I just dont want to be involved in a place where people who are supposedly reasonable and respectable play these games. If he had, after getting the diffs he had requested, brought it down to a 1 week topic ban, or even a block, or whatever, fine. But his insistence that the original sanction is appropriate when it clearly is not is what made me decide to be done. I cant do it anymore, I just do not have the will to deal with the typical bullshit and on top of that the bullshit from AE. Do you know that I was taken to AE for reverting an edit that said that the PLO was founded on Mars and another one where the edit summary was something along the lines of "no one believes in your Jewish BS about Holocaust"? What the fuck is wrong with people here, just say thanks for reverting that crap and be on your merry way. But no, anything to attack somebody from the other side. And anyways, I was smoking entirely too much weed trying to deal with this shit, I need to save some money so I need to stop being so aggravated. nableezy - 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to give this a proper reply, but I'm running out the door. Not that you're dying for my response, but I'll have one tomorrow night in any case. IronDuke 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like Sandstein is not going to reconsider, and is advising that you appeal if you want more feedback/action. I'd say that's decent advice. I'm not sure what retiring does for you, really, other than the obvious -- I doubt it hurts Sandstein. I recall a phrase/axiom/truism, paraphrasing from memory, "Feeling resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies of it." Even if one were to stipulate that Sandstein was dead wrong, not a shred of rightness in his decision, well... that's an everyday occurrence here, isn't it? Look at the WB/JS decision: extraordinarily, unapologetically draconian and out of scale. But, I feel, that will likely going to get righted eventually. It's frustrating enough to quit over, but who's the loser thereby? IronDuke 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and I did see that Mars thing, and I'll say this about that. Both sides are guilty of using wiki procedures to punish and silence those with whom they disagree (and IMO/E, the P side is guiltier). It's really, really unfortunate, and needs to stop. I don't know how to make that happen, other than to just keep saying it. IronDuke 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not "retiring" (what a stupid way to say quitting) to hurt Sandstein or anybody else. I just drove back from Chicago to the land of cheese and while I was driving a song that I had not heard in years came on. The lines that made me think about this were
So much about this place is based on lawyering your way through a maze of rules and procedures that in the end the result often resembles a collection of propaganda rather than an encyclopedia article. So much energy is wasted on bullshit that has nothing to do with producing a quality reference on any topic. Designed to keep the mind from thinking is an apt way of describing this place. I dont want to deal with the technicality shit anymore. And of course it does not hurt Sandstein, in fact the people who could possible be "hurt" by this are the ones that have to deal with more bullshit on their own. I dont particularly like leaving Tiamut to deal with those who I cannot describe with civil language. And that alone may one day drive me back here, but as it stands I cant do it anymore. But anyways ID, it was nice exchanging words with you when we happened to run into one another. Take care, and in the words of the immortal Tony Montana, say goodbye to the bad guy, cause you aint never gonna see another bad guy like me. nableezy - 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)It's issues I need to address/Pertaining the certain statements that made me confess/Faced with life, it bites when reality hit/And wit crime come a lot of technicality shit/Thru many co-defendants conspiracies linking/Like the court system designed to keep the mind from thinking
- I am reminded of a Jadakiss line, **as think they Scarface but they aint seen the end of the movie
- I am not "retiring" (what a stupid way to say quitting) to hurt Sandstein or anybody else. I just drove back from Chicago to the land of cheese and while I was driving a song that I had not heard in years came on. The lines that made me think about this were
- The ban is not the issue, it is the resistance after having the rest of the information in front of him to admitting the mistake. He originally said that the two month ban is in order because I "repeatedly" commented at an AfD that was covered under my topic ban. After been given the evidence that AfDs were to be treated as talk pages he now cites two diffs of me restoring other users comments with requests that people go to AE instead of enforcing arbitration decisions themselves as evidence of disruption and violating the topic ban. Yes, it is a technical breach, but I, purposely, did not actually make any comment about the AfD until my talk page ban expired, I just had a problem with highly involved users thinking that they are in a position to enforce an arbitration decision. I just dont want to be involved in a place where people who are supposedly reasonable and respectable play these games. If he had, after getting the diffs he had requested, brought it down to a 1 week topic ban, or even a block, or whatever, fine. But his insistence that the original sanction is appropriate when it clearly is not is what made me decide to be done. I cant do it anymore, I just do not have the will to deal with the typical bullshit and on top of that the bullshit from AE. Do you know that I was taken to AE for reverting an edit that said that the PLO was founded on Mars and another one where the edit summary was something along the lines of "no one believes in your Jewish BS about Holocaust"? What the fuck is wrong with people here, just say thanks for reverting that crap and be on your merry way. But no, anything to attack somebody from the other side. And anyways, I was smoking entirely too much weed trying to deal with this shit, I need to save some money so I need to stop being so aggravated. nableezy - 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the merits of Sandstein’s ban, I can tell you that in my experience with administrators I’ve had bad interactions with, their willingness to admit error is very, very low. There’s really nothing to be done about it. Quitting is always an option, and entirely understandable, but… it’s your wiki-funeral, but I can’t see the harm in just taking a break and then in a week or so reassessing your feelings after that time. IronDuke 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Another request to reconsider.
I think when the initial topic ban was imposed, I asked you not to quit. I do so again.
As far as I understand things, Sandstein's action does strike me as approaching the beginning of a wheel waw given that another admin had come to a different decision on the same matter. But that is done unless another admin cares to get involved.
On another matter, I was disappointed with the initial arb response to your proposal to lift the permanent topic bans. I've tried suggesting making it a one year ban with various rules about automatic extensions incorporated. As worded JayJG would have his ban lifted before Nish's runs down but I can't think of a better way to put things.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Fuck
It was the first thing that came to mind. I was just getting over the Trevor Linden retirement and now this. I'd like to ask you to stay but it would probably be more for my benefit than yours. And for Tiamut and IronDuke and everyone else. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Stop watching that crap, it isnt good for you. nableezy - 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Funny
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below. Sandstein 06:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)What? I am not allowed to present evidence that a user is engaged in sockpuppetry? nableezy - 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
Nableezy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like any reasonable person to say exactly how [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100]] falls within the scope of an I/P topic ban. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like any reasonable person to say exactly how [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100]] falls within the scope of an I/P topic ban. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like any reasonable person to say exactly how [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100]] falls within the scope of an I/P topic ban. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Note to reviewing admin: this block is an arbitration enforcement action and may not be undone except through consensus at WP:AE. The topic ban was violated because the edits concerned supposed sockpuppetry in the I-P conflict topic area; see the recent clarification concerning the scope of topic bans at [1]. Sandstein 06:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)