User talk:Nableezy/Archive 14

DYK nomination of Al-Azhar Mosque
Hello! Your submission of Al-Azhar Mosque at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Viva Italia?
I saw this story in the local paper and I thought you might want to read it before you do any travelling, since you have some time on your hands now. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty tough getting you any ganja here, Nab. The son of my niece's godparents (her mother lives next door), | Stefano Cucchi, who lived just down the road from us in Rome, was caught with 20 grammes of hashish two weeks ago, and a few pills for his epilepsy, which the police mistook to be 'ecstasy'. The carabinieri are under investigation because within a few hours he was hospitalized with a face like a piece of pulp, contusions from head to toe, and fractures to the jaw and spine. He was hospitalized, and left to die by the staff, losing 6 kilos in three days. His last wish was for a Bible, denied. If this can happen in our 'Western' democracies, one can imagine what 'laws' tend to govern those that live outside of them, under occupation or besieged by an incomprehensible wars. In a familiar narrative, those who held him in detention say he was to blame for his own death, falling down stairs, and refusing life-support etc..
 * Now, to the paranoia! Did JGGardiner know this story? Was his hint part of a devious strategy to get you nabbed as a pothead while playing the tourist in Rome? Is he in cahoots with AGK to finish you off? Will this end up with you being seized, whoozy from dragging on a reefer, by CIA operatives, as was Abu Omar, to be whisked off to be tortured in some Egyptian form of Guantanamo, so you spill the beans about your terroristic behaviour on wikipedia? Come clean JGGardiner!
 * ps. 23 CIA operatives just got sentenced to 5 to 8 year prison terms for hijacking Abu Omar off the streets of Milan. Of course, this being Italy, the head of the Italian Intelligence Services and his functionaries got off scot-free.
 * That written, I think the effects of the weed I just inhaled are wearing off. It's a wet day. I'll have to think of something profitable to do to while away my hours under the drizzle, like figuring out if the abu-brais gecko can be found in Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is terrible, though maybe it shouldn't be surprising. As far as "Egyptian form of Guantanamo", we just call it jail in Egypt; actually I think some of the people in Egyptian jails would much rather be in Guantanamo. I saw the Abu Omar story out here, but the spin was a bit different in the US, focusing on the career prospects of the Americans who can no longer freely travel to Europe without risking arrest. Such a travesty, the former CIA station chief will have to give up his chalet in the Alps.  nableezy  - 11:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a horrible story. It reminds me of the Robert Dziekański saga that we have here in Vancouver.  What terrbile creatures humans are.  Sometimes I can't help but think about joining VHEMT.  Although speakign of post-humanism, I must say that I've been pretty paranoid myself since I read Nick Bostrom's theory that I might be living inside of a computer simulation.  It is pretty convincing actually.

But Nableezy is right, the Abu Omar story was not covered much in North America. Very little news can survive the trip across the oceans to North America. Most of what does is just about Japanese robots. Although we do hear about the occasional Italian sex scandal. A real red-blooded American would obviously be unaware of political happenings in Europe. So one must wonder what shadowy conduits Nableezy taps into to know these things. But Nableezy already lives in America. So I'm sure that American intelligence is already aware of him and wouldn't need my help if they wanted to cart him off somewhere to beat him and electro-shock his genitals. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say that I know it isn't proper "wikiquette" to end a post on someone's talk page about their genitals being electro-shocked. So I feel bad about that but you kind of brought it on yourself, Nab. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nab on his page above has posted a waiver on wikiquette obligations, so I don't think you need worry, JGG. As you say, the scoundrel brought it on himself, and the electro-shock suggestion is a reasonable prognostication if Nab can't learn to rein in his aggro round here. It's moderate. It falls short of Ariel Sharon's suggestion for a somewhat harsher measure with dealing with recalcitrant demonstrators with Nab's kind of sympathies and behaviour, available to the prurient reader of Thomas Baylis's, How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lexington Books, 1999, p.241, note 123! Cheers to you both. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

picture
Because the sourcing borders on ridiculous, and the copyright isn't valid. It was getting to be an eyesore after a while, when someone would put it up all over again. Feel free to upload a fresh picture, be it the same image, under non-free rationale for the English wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.154.62 (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Azhar Mosque

 * Old age. Well, I've thought of another excuse. My contribution to the page was motivated by selfish unwikipedian impulses that don't deserve commendation. I jumped at your invitation in order to do a number of edits to bring my edit score to the round 13,000.
 * I'm glad you got the award, Nab. It makes up, if only symbolically, for the weird, actually quite normal, injustice you copped recentl, now compounded by the waiver of similar measures that should have, with more justice, been applied to a couple of your, and wikipedia's, antagonists.
 * The good news today is that at Castelbuono in Sicily, the mayor turned down a plan to buy trucks to pick up the city refuse, and bought 3 donkeys or asses to carry the rubbish off, passing from door to door, saving the municipality some 40,000 dollars a year. It works, though I gather if it were applied to Chicago, they'd either end up in the abattoirs, or be elected to the city council.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the time you are allowed back, Norman Finkelstein's forthcoming book on the war on Gaza will be out. It will be published on 27 December. It should make editing easier since it will be one of the first reliable secondary sources to become available. Best Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I suspect you are quite wrong about that being likely to make editing easier, Nishidani - as soon as Finkelstein's name even crops up in an article or on a talk page, about 80% of the active editors on I-P pages are driven to a state of blind fury and start huring the usual insults his way, while edit warring anything he says out of the article in question, even when attributed. His book will no doubt be a useful addition to the published record, but of course that's not of interest to most of the people editing in the area. Who needs books when you can get all your info direct from CAMERA or National Post op-eds? Oh well. --Nickhh (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Al-Azhar Mosque
Hi nableezy. Thanks for your note. I'll take a look at Al-Azhar Mosque but I'm going away next week, so I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to review it carefully. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you email me
some of the stuff you obviously smoke to avoid the dull routine of sleeping, son? I've made my calculations. It must be around 4.30 am over there?Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * sent, and thats just how the able-bodied though less able-minded celebrate a new dawn.  nableezy  - 11:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You deserve a Caining for implying that you are less 'Abel-minded'.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Bullshitting is how I work. Actually editing articles is pretty damn boring. I suspect that you can only manage it with your performance enhancing substances. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Cook
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jonathan Cook. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple violations of discretionary sanctions on I-P articles, with apology
You are violating your topic ban which includes (on both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case as per Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I suggest you revert your edits on these pages. --Shuki (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Shuki, Nableezy's ban from talk pages has expired. It was for one month only, which is why edits to Talk:Bethlehem made in the last day are not at all problematic. (At Talk:Saliha he formatted the page a couple of days ago, is that a problem?) Are there other edits you feel violate his topic ban? If so, please provide diffs here first before making unsubstantiated accusations. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tiamut, for reference Shuki here is the adjustment of my topic ban to 2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month. But thanks for the, I'm sure heartfelt, concern.  nableezy  - 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great news to hear! Tiamut - WP:AGF, if you can. I suppose that Nableezy can now join the douchebags he so loathes. Just a general comment as Nableezy pointed out. --Shuki (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in my comment that fails to AGF, though you are perhaps right to assume that with you, that might be difficult. In any case, thanks for your commentary and concern. PS. I've restored the proper heading for this sub-section per Nableey's changes. This is his talk page after all. Ciao.  T i a m u t talk 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Shuki, the douchebags are the ones who dont contribute anything other than noticeboard and enforcement requests. So I wont be joining them. And I dont "loathe" them, I am only amused by them.  nableezy  - 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, you want to go into details? You could have left your first comment with the opening lines but you failed AGF when you nonetheless accused me of making unsubstantiated accusations and when I had not been informed of the reduction in the topic ban. I don't think I have to remind you of WP:OWN which applies to talk pages as well. And if you did use AGF as you claim, you would understand that my edit to the title I used of the section 'I opened', is a retraction of the allegations, now shown to be unwarranted. I apologize to Nableezy for that. I guess I should follow your talk pages to read about these things. Note taken. --Shuki (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shuki, please, just let it go. I enjoy a bit of humor so I changed the title as it made me laugh, if it bothers you we can keep it as you have it now. I really do not care. Once upon a time you and I got along reasonably well, there is no reason why that cannot happen again. But if we have to resort to linking to policies and guidelines, WP:3RR applies here, and it also says that an exception to the rule is Reverting edits to your own user space. If I were so inclined I could revert the title over and over and report you for 3RR, but I am not. Can we all just let this go as a simple misunderstanding?  nableezy  - 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok with me, so why bother threaten mention speculative 3RR that is not relevant? Anyway, I now see that you have been more constructive in the past month. Mabrouk to that. I put off the locality/settlement discussion until you get back. It would seem weeny to take advantage of the ban and also conversely see the banned whine on the sidelines. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why bother? Just to show that any rule can be used for any purpose, but it does not help us resolve any actual issues, much like linking to WP:OWN did not help resolve anything. I appreciate you waiting for me for settlement/locality discussion. I dont know if I have been more constructive in the past month, I think I have been constructive throughout my time here. But, for what its worth, I would be very happy if we could drop this and pretend it never happened.  nableezy  - 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice
I've requested clarification here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian Monkey (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is so very sweet of you, but my topic ban on talk pages expired.  nableezy  - 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Steiner photo
I think it was just from the copyright page. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. It looks good.  Although I think he'd be accused of looking Harry Potter-like today.  And don't forget to include him in notable people from Karlín. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria
Do you know anything about the history of Template:Judea_and_Samaria ? I'm curious why it isn't called something like 'West Bank/Judea and Samaria' or something along those lines.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Judea and Samaria Area is the name of the administrative zone that Israel has given to most of the West Bank (East Jerusalem is not included). The guidelines permit the use of "Judea and Samaria Area" when specifically referring to the administrative so long as it is not used "without qualification as though it is the NPOV position". It is typically used for the administrative area that various settlements are in.  nableezy  - 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
I have mixed feelings, and not much time to elaborate. I do find it hard to gauge whether these articles are improved since the decision, even if I sat around comparing them. Nonetheless, I think the editing environment in this area has, for some years, been completely horrendous. I consider certain people more responsible for that than others, like everyone else, but then I'm left suspecting that the breeding ground for that environment is still there. In fact it's a slow process, but I've recently been encouraged that we are seeing some less adversarial types making their way toward these articles. I'm conflicted in that I would hate to see such a trend reverse. I should clarify right away that I'm really not familiar with several of the editors under the probation.

Perhaps what I'd like to see is for some of the involved editors to comment. Certainly this can explain why some editors were so frustrated with this dispute, and I think several of them have a real complaint. Some may have basically the same complaint they had before. Some may have some explaining to do. That seems to mean I would support individual reevaluations, considering the amount of disruption that's now known to have been involved. I said recently, though, that if the topic bans are all lifted, I think there needs to be something in their place. Mackan79 (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope there is some consideration about all of the drive-by reverting and such. If editors aren't supposed to edit war with blatant disruptive socks, then there need to be good ways to deal with it.  That an effectively banned user could apparently come back as something like half a dozen accounts, and play a large role in bringing about an arbitration case in which five other people are topic banned, should say something. I've seen these kinds of accounts exhibit all political persuasions, of course.  Mackan79 (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom decision was born of exasperation, much of it understandable. Most judgements were based on a generic 'feel' something had to be done, without any exercise of individual discrimination, and so they wiped the slate, unaware, as is now clear, that this meant the wholly arbitrary selection of 'culprits' was not indicative of the number of troublemakers active then and now, and that no sensible rule was in place to avoid the kind of attrition the arbiotrators witnessed.
 * It is unlikely to be reviewed, because it would again take a huge amount of time, unwillingly 'wasted'. It is true that sockpuppets were abundant on the side that lost just one very capable, if in my view, on I/P issues, tendentious editor, and thus only two editors for the 'pro-Israeli side' were perma-banned, as against 5 from the other side, which does look bad from the perspective of wiki's neutrality. In the three years I have been active, I have known of only one editor on 'my side' I worked with being caught for 'sockpuppetry', AK, and it was caught and dealt with immediately. The number of socks, or militants flowing in regularly on the 'other side' strikes me as statistically far higher. So the real issue is stopping banned people or drive by anonymous I/P editors from roughing up the editing environment, and that can be dealt with quite simply: in selectively determined areas rife with a history of contention, just raise the bar and make entry into it dependent on a solid record of at least 1,000 edits (I'd prefer 2,000, since that kind of Sitzfleisch is what is needed), without AN/I problems, to the encyclopedia. 99% of the problems we have would vanish.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting to go back at any rate and analyse key editing moments in the hindsight of wisdom, now it is clear that User:NoCal100 and User:Canadian Monkey are the same person. At Susya, which I substantially built, esp. on the synagogue material, I had 8 edits made by these two, 6 of them against an obvious, impeccably RS-sourced edit of mine, over the period of a day (April 20-21). I reverted three times, for it was a clear case of tag-teaming or eliding a reliable source, or both. I even complained to User:Tznkai about what was going on at Susya. Another arbitrator (User:Risker) thought my behaviour in the same week and on the same page, in reverting a third editor, possibly a sock (User talk:Jordandov), who appeared and disappeared within days, and whom I reverted with an ironic summary about 'good faith vandalism' for having called a  settlement on what an RS called expropriated Palestinian land an Israeli town (a falsehood, since it isn't in Israel), lowercasing 'Palestinian' throughout and calling Palestinians Arabs and cavemen, convincing proof that I was a POV-warrior, countering Jordandov's POV (unattested by RS) with my own (based on sources) during the Arbcom case. Combating this sock-type and reverting NoCal/CM told against me, whereas it now is clear that, putting aside the third handle (Jordandov) there was just one other editor, with his sock, making 6 consecutive edits against me, and this didn't appear to register as evidence against either! This was par for the course at that period, but go figure why admins never picked up the probability in the subtext of such exchanges. They don't apparently take tagteaming or socks seriously, until it is too late. Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am interested in some of the thoughts and ideas which you have expressed here. please feel free to keep me posted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishi, I was planning on going through the J+S articles to see how much tag-teaming (can you even say that about one person) was done by CM and NoCal100, or in your parlance how much Canadian Monkey was monkeying around. Could you give a list of the articles that saw the most edit-warring?  nableezy  - 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out User:Tiamut/DE which gives a run down of events at what was titled Lydda Death March before some tag-teaming by Canadian Monkey, NoCal100, Jalapenos do exist, and others led to its renaming without having ever opened a renaming discussion (which drove me off Wikipedia for about two months).  T i a m u t talk 09:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that had been established. It's a pity that I wasn't more experienced at the time I posted .--Peter cohen (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Its been suspected for some time and I still have suspicions about a number of other accounts running around in this domain (some old, some new). I wish checkuser was mandatory in the IP sphere actually since sockpuppeting is so rampant and has a tendency to drive productive editors away while giving free rein to POV pushing disruptors.  T i a m u t talk 09:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Deeply sorry about this, Nab. You're now being lined up for erasure because of our association. I deeply appreciate your interest in resurrecting the dead, (and even have wasted a few minutes worrying whether there is a theological compatibility between this 'Christian' concern and Islamic ethics about doing the right thing!), but I am dead meat here, and there's no point wasting your time on this. I should never have posted that reflection on the implications of the recent sockpuppetry exposure on your page, since it could be read as an invitation to help me, whereas I don't need help, and have no intention of wriggling back here. Above all, this would be a waste of serious time better spent actually writing articles, once your own minor ban expires completely. Forget the past, but not its lessons (that to edit this area, you must be ready to come under constant harassment by socks and their mates, and that the art is to sidestep their enticements to wikilawyer one's way through the labyrinth of rules, and simply stay focused on articles. There are several very good editors who manage this: they are better models for how to be useful here than myself. Don't reply to this, or to the nitpickers anymore. There are a dozen drifters-in since midyear who seem intent on recreating the old hassled environment. Ignore them. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck that. Ive seen you cite individual pages of scholarly literature from memory, giving nearly the exact quote and page number (I checked). Somebody with that ability and knowledge of the subject has to be allowed to edit here. It is mind-numbingly retarded that a supposed "encyclopedia" would deny itself that level of expertise. I dont see how they can allow those topic-bans to stand when a single editor who should have long since been banned (see Mackan's evidence for who may be the original account here) was the single most disruptive editor. If your topic ban is lifted and you can still see the keyboard you are going to come back.  nableezy  - 09:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani. Your own topic ban will expire eventually. I think its honourable that Nableezy put forward a draft suggesting that you and the others should have the band lifted given that two of the others from "the other side" who were banned were actually socks for one another. I think if Cptnono and other editors trying to get Nableezy further sanctions for editing according to our policies and guidelines get away with what they are doing, Wikipedia will be sending a very shitty message to the world. Anyway, I'm going to do a little thinking about the best way to proceed here. De-escalation is needed all around. At the same time, those committing wiki crimes should not be allowed to get away with it.  T i a m u t talk 09:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not honorable, selfish.  nableezy  - 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't pick the wrong fight, son. Get to bed, Nab. At my venerable age, I'm more likely to expire before my perma-ban, Tiamut. Nableezy talked of being 'selfish', which is only his slangy Chicagoan (Saul Bellowish) way of alluding to Yeats, whose lines written about fishmongering, or selling fish, in Byzantium, apply equally to old codgers twaddling into wikipedia:

This is no country for old men. The young All up in arms, turds in the trees, Where crying generations get things wrong, Salmon appals, and shouting 'holy mackerel!', crowds fall on their knees,Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing For every tatter in its mortal dress
 * Your *ahem* paraphrase of Yeats is missing an important part:
 * unless
 *  nableezy  - 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I must the biggest turd in the tree. My latest contribution to AE regarding Nableezy's case was summarily deleted by Tznkai who claims I am doing Nableezy no favors. I think its time for me to bow out of this gig altogether.  T i a m u t talk 10:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not.  nableezy  - 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think I should stick around, I will, as I happen to deeply value your opinion.  T i a m u t talk 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are?
You move comments to a talk page and no else can? Where do you get the nerve? --Gilabrand (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved comments not related to the actual purpose of the AfD but rather commenting about the AfD itself to the talk page. You are moving comments that are relevant to the actual AfD and in doing so completely messing up the threads that those comments are in. Do I really need to answer the opening question? For the nth time, if you think that the users are in violation of their topic bans then please go to WP:AE and request enforcement of the ban. It is not your place to make that decision. My removal of the !vote by Mr. Hicks was done not because he is topic banned and I, on my own, made the determination that he is in violation of his topic ban, but rather because it was made by the sock of the site-banned NoCal100 (and if you did not notice, I removed a keep !vote, hard to believe you would remove a delete !vote in similar circumstances). You seem to have taken that as an excuse to continue your incredibly inane actions in removing half of a conversation. It is not.  nableezy  - 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may answer the question that heads this section with my own humble take on things: I think you are amazing. Glad to see you are sticking things out. Hope to be back more regularly soon myself too. Real life has taken over in a big way recently, but I still need my Wiki fixes. Take care Nableezy. Hope you had a happy eid el-adha.  T i a m u t talk 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not so bad yourself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've addressed your concerns, as indicated below. By deleting my comments, as well as the banned editors comments, the confusion that concerns you has been eliminated.  A


 * lso, I would appreciate it if you would put my comments that you have moved from the AfD to the talk page, back onto the AfD page. I would like the closing admin, and the other editors, to consider them, since they bear directly on the AfD.  I think it was a bit over the top for you to delete my comments from the talk page.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * wtf are you talking about? The comments I moved have nothing to do with whether or not Cook is notable, which is what the AfD is about. And I did not remove any comments from the talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am referring to you moving my comments. From the AfD.  To the AfD discussion page.  My comments specifically relate to the AfD, and they are important ones for the closer and the other editors to see when evaluating the AfD comments and votes that remain.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they really are not. Discussion about the subjects notability belongs on the AfD page, discussion of the AfD belongs on the AfD talk page and discussion about AfD in general belongs at WT:AfD. Your comments, and the responses to them, fall into the second set. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you are topic banned as well. Not only that, but an Arbitrator wrote two days ago that you're clearly not allowed to be editing at the AfD.  And yet even after that, you're editing at the AfD, its discussion page, deleting my comments from the AfD and moving them, and discussing it all here as though you are an editor in good standing to discuss it.  You're clearly not, but I'm especially offended by your duplicitousness in the time since the Arbitrator's confirmation of what was obvious -- which I stated in the language that you removed from the AfD.  I'm, quite frankly, shocked by your behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what it is you are talking about. When that is the case the wisest course of action is to research some more, or at the very least, not say stupid things. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic banned editors' edits
I've deleted the threads that consisted entirely of comments by the two topic-banned editors and my responses. I note that in reverting the deletion of the topic banned editors' edits to that page you suggested that that was necessitated by the fact that their deletion made my remarks unintelligible. I disagree, but to make matters simpler I've deleted my remarks responding to one of the editors as well. I think that placing the banned editors comments on the talk page is a violation of the ban -- in the first instance, by the banned editor, but in the case of anyone restoring those edits, of the restoring editor. I hope that we can tone down the rhetoric on that page, and keep banned editors' comments off it. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not the proper procedure. If you feel that the editors violated their topic ban you should go to WP:AE, not unilaterally enforce a decision that you are not in a position to make. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the rule that says that? I'm not familiar with it, but if you point me to it, I will be happy to reconsider.  As well as the rule that supports your placing topic banned editors' comments on the talk page--which I think is a violation of the topic ban by you?  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Last question first, I did not place their edits on the talk page, I placed the conversation about their edits on the talk page as it has nothing to do with the actual AfD. Can I point you to a rule? Not off the top of my head, but the actual arbitration case says that such decisions are left to any uninvolved administrator and that enforcement of the arbitration is handled at WP:AE (Arbitration Enforcement). My problem here is that you are determining that this AfD falls within the scope of the topic ban. That may well be true, but that is not a determination that you should be making and enforcing. Also, when this came up in ANI User:LessHeard vanU also replied that this is an WP:AE issue (see closing comment here). Other users should not be enforcing arbitration decisions, that is left to uninvolved admins, and these repeated attempts to do so are disconcerting. Especially when one of the users who has removed the comments (note neither editor actually !voted) and !voted himself is a sock of an editor who was topic-banned in that same arbitration case and then site-banned when it was discovered he was evading his ban with sockpuppets (User:Mr. Hicks The III, sock of User:NoCal100 who also used another sock User:Canadian Monkey to open a request for clarification about this very point, removed the others comments and !voted here). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it has everything to do with the AfD. As I feel--as was evident from my comments--that their comments poisoned the AfD.  I must again request that you return my comments to the AfD page.
 * I think that a reasonable reading of the topic ban means that it relates to an AfD on a writer who writes ... only about that specific topic. The banned editors clearly think so as well -- they say they didn't vote because of the ban.  Where they err is that the ban is about more than voting; it is about their taking part in conversations as well.
 * I see this as the same as you removing a banned sock's comments, at the same AfD.
 * If you want to bring some other eyes to this matter, please do, but in the interim I would ask that you move my comments that you have put on the talk page back to the AfD. And that you let my deletion of the string w/the topic banned editors sit--as I've addressed your initial protest that deletion of part of the string would render it confusing.
 * BTW, no need to leave talkbacks. I'll keep an eye here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another btw--perhaps I'm confused by too many N names saying pretty much the same thing ... but are you topic-banned as well? Apologies in advance for asking, if not.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found the answer. To my surprise, not only are you topic banned, but an admin handed down a decision 2 days ago confirming that such topic bans clearly apply to the AfD and related discussions -- and even after that decision, you've led me on here.  I'm quite disappointed. That's terribly and maliciously disruptive and duplicitous.  Signing off.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First part answered above. Regarding the removal of Nick and Nishi's comments: the topic ban covers all articles related to the conflict and for articles not related but touch on it, the sections of those articles are off limits. Nick's comments in particular, I assume purposely, avoids discussion of the conflict and instead focus on the issue of notability from a journalism perspective. All he really says is that we should request outside opinions from the journalism wikiproject, how exactly does that fall under the topic ban? Jonathan Cook himself is not related to the conflict, he is a journalist and writer. The things he writes about are related, but if the editors avoid those topics then how is it a violation of the topic ban? And how exactly did Nick's comments "poison the AfD"? Nishi's comments are probably a violation of the topic ban, but again, how did they "poison the AfD"? He brought sources that attest to the notability of Cook. How could that possibly poison the AfD? But all of that misses the point. The arbitration case enforcement is handled by an uninvolved admin for a reason. The "opponents" can not be allowed to police each other, and for good reason. What you and Gila are doing is substituting your opinion on whether or not it is a violation of the topic ban and how that violation of the topic ban should be dealt with. This is not acceptable, neither of you are uninvolved and neither of you is an admin. If you wish to ask for enforcement of the topic ban you should do it at WP:AE (arbitration enforcement). You should not substitute your own judgment in place of an uninvolved, hopefully impartial, admin. And yes, I am under a topic ban of sorts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (after ec) I have not led you on, but if you would like to add more adjectives feel free. If you do not know what you are talking about you should not hit save page. A request for clarification was filed by Canadian Monkey (now known to be a sockpuppet of NoCal100) about this issue. One of the 13 arbitrators who were involved in the original arbitration case has stated his or her view on the topic. That does not mean anything is "decided". And my topic ban is currently limited to articles. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)