Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:11, 25 January 2010

Soon, I promise.

Ariel (city)

Never was I gladder to see someone else taking their turn in arguing with our new friend. When (s)he started claiming that I was missing the point when I had just demolished exactly the point someone on his side had made I was beginning to get irritated. Just make sure you bail out before you get too irritated.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ps you don't seem very retired to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldnt help myself, but I do plan on being done for a while. But that thread was too much. Also, I think you might enjoy reading this reasoning by another user. Perhaps you should read it back to him. nableezy - 00:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing like being consistent. Presumably that argument will resurface when he gives up claiming not to be able to get the gist of what I said. After all now that I've demonstrated that the figures are actually against him, WP:GHITS must be true.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, are people still fighting over this one? Anyway, I seem to recall that some crazy guy suggested a while back, as part of a previous ArbCom case, that some kind of central and formal solution/agreement was needed on all these related points. However, of course this suggestion was roundly ignored by the powers-that-be, who instead simply decided to topic ban all the involved editors, including those that had proposed and supported this idea, and then congratulate themselves on a job well done. Sniping aside, might it be worth trying to revive this proposal, perhaps as an extension to the West Bank/J&S guidelines? I'm probably excluded from doing anything on it, and Nableezy you may well not want to. But anyone else? --Nickhh (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now mentioned it on the discussion page.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you check this out?

Hi Nableezy,

I don't you how you've managed to be so successful in determining whose a sock of whom, but given that you have, I'd like to ask you to look into the case of a new user: User:Los Admiralos. I have reason to believe he's part of the sock network we are all familiar with, or perhaps a related one. (Check out too who edited just before at Nazareth and Viva Palestina as well). Anyway, I'm having all kinds of deja vu. Your help would be appreciated. Tiamut 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had a feeling it was him. There's still more of him around, but I can't quite pin down who (some of those I suspect might actually be meatpuppets instead of socks). I won't recommend any more investigations until the feelings gets stronger and more clearly defined. I really appreciate your help. Hope you are doing well. Tiamut 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You didnt have to say anything to begin with, I was just waiting for some more evidence before opening a request, had a feeling after the first couple of edits. And you dont have to thank me now, أنا تحت أمرك . nableezy - 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have known you were on top of it, being the great detective in these matters that you have proven to be. Keef ma kan, shukran ikteer sadiqi. Deer balak a hallak. And happy editing. Tiamut 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Israel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 05:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

SoP

Judging by the message you left me, you don't seem to be retired at all. Why won't you correct the absurds in the article you mentioned instead of warning me? Sending warnings is the easiest thing to do. Working to correct wrong-doings in the editing process is much harder but much more needed. DrorK (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually saying "no no no no" to the sources is the easiest thing to do. Why don't you find sources that back up your various rantings instead of wasting my time? nableezy - 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Nableezy, I love your last comment. It could be addressed to you as well, you know :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1

Thank you for your note. You are right. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And now I could thank you here :)

Hi, Nableezy. What you've done here was very kind and generous of you. I am glad I was blocked because it helped me to get to know you better! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I had weird feelings about this user earlier today and then I saw this at ANI. So what do you think sock detective? Tiamut 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that account is not compromised. Same user had previously edited in the area, adding pictures to a number of pages including the Gaza war page and pages on international law. Just a bit emotional in the topic area, but then again who isnt? nableezy - 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You sure about that? Two other accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets for filing sockpuppet reports linking Mbz1 and Israelbeach. While Mbz1 did edit a couple of I-P articles before (like Muhammed al-Durrah where he reverted once without discussion, also commenting in an WP:AN complaint filed by Jaakobou), he has not been anywhere near as involved as he has in the past two days (coinciding, strangely, with the time Los Admiralos was blocked). Weird too that User:Isarig was allowed to vanish and User:Israelbeach's archive of why he was blocked has vanished too. Anyway, like I said, I work on instinct. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize profusely to Mbz1. But its all certainly very strange. Tiamut 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn near 100% sure. nableezy - 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you're dead wrong, but please spare me your apology. I care only about apology from the people I respect.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not insult editors who I respect on this page. nableezy - 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)