User talk:Nableezy/Archive 50

Your signature...
... is incredible. I wish I could have a similar one. How did you make that? The part that puts timestamp within the box. In my case, timestamp is always outside the editable part, so I just couldn't make something like that. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have the timestamp hardcoded in to my signature, so I sign with three tildes instead of four. You can see the code at User:Nableezy/sig.css. I matched the timestamp format so that things like rfc tags would still work. Honestly, Id been thinking of changing it back to the standard, having it this way makes it so I cant use the reply tool since that automatically appends a four tilde signature. I once tried to figure out how to modify that code in enterprisey's script and failed miserably and never tried again.  nableezy  - 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for telling me how you get that, but sadly I'm just too dependent on the reply tool. I tried lots of permutations and combinations and it looks like there is no way to go around this issue. So it is indeed a bit problematic. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have the benefit of being too old to change my ways for these new fancy gadgets the youth of Wikipedia grew up with. Plus when I think of all the times Ive saved myself from typing that one extra tilde I guess its evened out with not getting the reply tool.  nableezy  - 15:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * C'mon" Come clean for once. Bill the spleens. You went to a huge amount of technical trouble to do that because you like wilting tildes.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly it was pedrito's signature that was the inspiration but changed the colors to match an Egyptian flag.  nableezy  - 18:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being brave on Wikipedia
You made me cry due to an emotional burst of love and respect for you because of your defense of users who write about runes on Wikipedia, and this that you said earlier: "'And I'm sure somebody will come along with a Hate is Disruptive wikilink, but we are continuing down this path of a Wikipedia orthodoxy that if one strays from it they are shunned from the community. A place of knowledge is not supposed to be a place free of divisive views. It is not supposed to be a place where you are always comfortable.'"

Yes! Yes! Yes! Agreed!

There was some verbiage about you being pro-Hezbollah. Whatever. I am a (somewhat closeted, sad, old, widowed, poor, American) Zionist. Whatever. People like us and like that poor soul LD+ some digits, who got banned or blocked in perpetuity anyway, are entitled to freedom of thought. (It is a different matter if we disruptively edit Wikipedia with polemics.) Thank you for standing up for our rights. I will stand up for yours. Do not hesitate to let me know if I can ever be of assistance in such matters. FeralOink (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well to be frank, I think the user in question was a troll in the end and a NOTHERE block was fine, but I still dont like the idea that views are being banned. And I also agree that we do need to be mindful of how we come off, as a body of editors, to what are underrepresented minorities in that body. But at the end of the day I still believe you dont win an argument with a shitty view by shutting it down, you win by proving it wrong.  nableezy  - 04:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, these words by Nableezy were stated with the utmost finesse. I have always respected Nableezy, although we might share different political views and have a generally different outlook or worldview on life. What we both agree with, however, is that people everywhere (whether Jews or Arabs, Christians or Muslims) should treat one another with dignity. Here, on Wikipedia, we have almost all made mistakes, although some are judged more severely than others. If Nableezy would agree to write me, there are things that I'd like to say to him, but which I cannot say to him here.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * David, my email is enabled and you can feel free to send me a message through Special:EmailUser/Nableezy.  nableezy  - 04:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nableezy.Davidbena (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: ADL
And WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH says "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources" is tendentious editing. Andre🚐 18:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite your belief, nobody is obliged to believe what you believe on how good a source is. I myself think the ADL is fine for some things and dogshit for others, including the topic under discussion there. And if you think an RFC with 3 Icewhiz votes and a Yaniv vote and when removing those votes goes closer to "other considerations apply" is enough to claim that it is "tendentious editing" to disagree with you then well add that to the count of things youve said that I disagree with. Can call that tendentious editing too if that makes you happy.  nableezy  - 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I didn't think we disagreed all that often, that's too bad. If you think the ADL is unreliable, go ahead and start a new discussion to that end. I happen to think a priori that the ADL is reliable for evidence of the sort I was using it for: evidence that the Khazar hypothesis is popular among Russian anti-Semites. Some users want to hand-wave away this fact or claim that there is legitimacy in the Khazar hypothesis and in fact, it is the scientific consensus that is kowtowing to nationalistic claims. There are no thought crimes on wiki, but if you persist in disputing the reliability of apparently reliable sources due to a political advocacy reason - i.e., you want to support or oppose a nationalistic claim of a particular group, that is at least improper and inadvisable for an experienced user. The ADL site I provided clearly provides evidence that the Khazar hypothesis is a touch point for problematic groups. Furthermore there's no good evidence of its veracity in the scientific literature, the WP:OR-pushing user and recent blocked sockpuppets nonwithstanding. Recent studies support a European-Middle Eastern origin for AJ. Not Khazar. There might have incidentally been Khazar Jews, just as their are in fact Cochin Jews or what-have-you, but that's not what the Khazar hypothesis alleges, and it's naive to claim otherwise. Nableezy, I have generally found your edits to be clueful and thoughtful. Andre🚐 21:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The ADL may be a fine for source the popularity of some theory among some group, it is not as fine a source for the quality of the theory, and it is certainly less reliable than academic works focused on the topic. And there is a very obvious association failure in your above comment (it is popular among some problematic group, therefore it itself is problematic) But honestly, that topic is one that I find of extremely little importance, and I am not really interested in delving deeper on it. Again, as far as reliability, the RFC does not support the idea that the ADL is reliable for all things. It is certainly reliable for some things, but the idea that it is of such indisputable reliability that it is tendentious to dispute it in any instance is horsehit. And the idea that you should badger somebody on their talk page because they disagree with you on the merits of that source in that instance is likewise.  nableezy  - 21:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I warned Nishidani on their talk page due to civility issues which I believe are themselves problematic. It turns out I was misunderstanding them at least in part, but their style and comments didn't help. As far as the Khazar hypothesis, I'm not saying the Khazar hypothesis is wrong or problematic because of the ADL. It's wrong or problematic due to the studies such as Behar 2013. It also happens to be used by anti-Semites to come up with crazy conspiracy theories, some examples of which are in the ADL link I gave, and it is reliable enough for that evidence. I didn't say the ADL is the word of god. Nor am I saying the RFC was ironclad and I wouldn't object if you start a new one. Again, though, the Nishidani correspondence shows quite a bit of incivility and frustration, and the OR-POVfest on the Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry not entirely unlike the similar scenario with the recent blocked sock. Believe me, I'm not a partisan on this issue, and I'm not advocating a partisan position. Not all of them, but most of the Khazar pushers on a forum like this do have an agenda. Andre🚐 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you wrote on the talk page was the Khazar hypothesis is indeed tied to anti-Semitism as sources have shown, citing this ADL release on some antisemites claiming that a Khazarian mafia is behind the Ukraine war. Never mind that it never actually discusses the theory under discussion in that page, which has its own history that, shockingly, is unrelated to the Russia-Ukraine war. Im sorry, but thats a very shitty source to make the sweeping claim you are making. And it is not tendentious to say so.  nableezy  - 23:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the ADL description, it is all accurate, relevant, source-able to the ADL and pertinent to the conversation and explains why there is an uptick of people trying to cast a favorable light on the Khazar hypothesis in recent weeks If you're challenging the veracity of the quoted portion I can provide other sources, but clearly supports my statement that the Khazar hypothesis is tied to anti-Semitism. You will note that Nishidani's response to my statement was Puerile, read the article's history of the concept. Anyone can prove anything by sweeping fringe lunatic sites from Telegraph and Twitter playing to minor constituencies (10,000 more or less) of paranoid conspiracy theorists which was incivil, inaccurate, and apparently doubting the quality of the source (the source itself offers evidence of at least 350k+ followers on social media sites, for one) Andre🚐 23:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ. First off, in Nishidani's comment Anyone can prove anything by sweeping fringe lunatic sites from Telegraph and Twitter playing to minor constituencies (10,000 more or less) of paranoid conspiracy theorists, the "anyone" is the ADL, the "fringe lunatic sites" is what it is referencing in its piece, for example E. Michael Jones's twitter following of 32k people. It is saying that the ADL is attempting to discredit something on the basis of the lunatic fringe. That you still dont get his point is not his fault, it is immediately clear to anybody who even tries to follow along. And no, the ADL piece is not pertinent to an article on the Khazar theory. It may be pertinent to an article on reactions among the fringe of relevancy on twitter to the Ukraine war. His comment was neither uncivil nor inaccurate, and, once again, one is allowed to disagree with you on the quality of a source without you harranguing them on their talk page. Nishidani asked you twice to stop commenting there, and twice you ignored that. Mostly because you either did not want to or did not care to parse what he said correctly.  nableezy  - 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do now understand his point but it was still incivil, and his follow-up did not clarify, but continued to insult me, accusing me of not reading or of not being informed, stating had you read what I wrote carefully, you would have never even posed such a hairbrained query. you simply do not appear to weigh words carefully, or recall precisely points made by your interlocutor our 'reading' of my statements borders on the illiterate, based on a failure to grasp elementary English grammar, which led you to make the absurd inference above. I nowhere stated the ADL is lunatic fringe. Stop annoying this page with your own bizarre incapacity to construe or parse what an interlocutor writes. It gives the impression of someone spoiling for a fight That is a simple misunderstanding which the user could have straightened out at any time but instead chose to assume bad faith, accuse me of various things and insult me. As far as stopping commenting there, the user repeatedly states he is going to stay out of it, not take sides, and not continue to engage, yet does so anyway. You will note I have not responded again on his talk page, as you and he have the last word there, but he has continued to respond on the Khazar talk.
 * And you are certainly in my view off on the ADL piece is extremely relevant to the Khazar story, writing, Some allege that the war itself is orchestrated by Jews for both financial control and global prowess. Others refer to the “Khazarian Mafia” or the “Khazarian invasion” to justify and even celebrate Russia’s invasion. This conspiracy alludes to the belief that modern Eastern European Jewry descended from a people known as the Khazars, who allegedly converted to Judaism in the eighth century and lived in present-day Ukraine. Believers claim Putin’s incursion into Ukraine was a means to help the country counter/dispel an invasion of “Khazar Jews.” The piece also includes evidence of numbers well into hte neighborhood of half-a-million people yet Nishidani insists must number less than 10,000. Nishidani also accuses editors of bias without evidence and casts aspersions: All of this is inflected by the cultural bias that seeks to ascertain proof from the science of paleogenetics for the concept of a 'return to one's homeland' underwriting the religious ideology of Judaism. He states, Wikipedia cannot be an outlet for one's own research or a site promoting one's views. yet that is actually exactly what he is doing, making statements such as consisting of a list of papers that, probably unread, have been clipped from the relevant wiki pages (The list was from the article I cited) The ideological commitments are too deeply enseamed into our public and scientific discourse, so that commonsense has no traction, and passages like the following are, if read, quickly forgotten, because their exposure of the absurd assumptions underwriting the literature on genetic identity would put a lot of people out of work. This is WP:RGW. We write what the sources say. Andre🚐 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And you are also engaging in speculation as to my motivation for warning him and responding to him: you either did not want to or did not care to parse what he said correctly. How about I just didn't understand him because he is a classic WP:TEXTWALL and repeatedly, rather than clearly and cogently explaining what he means, insults, changes the topic, goes off on a rant about something, accuses the field or people of bias or ideological weakness, accuses people of not being educated or informed, and touts his own credentials. Andre🚐 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy is that there is a Khazarian mafia orchestrating the conflict. Yes, that is an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It is related to the Khazar origin theory. You are making these leaps between topics, and Nishidani is arguing against that. Sure, he would be better off depersonalizing his responses, but you have missed his point over and over. And while doing so youve, in my view, mashed up several disparate topics. Yes, his initial response to you was harsh. But it was after several times you misconstruing his comment and making accusations, implicitly or explicitly, about his views. I dont give any motivation in my comment. But since we agree you misunderstood his comment originally, can we drop this here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm happy to drop it, as you know I don't agree with you on this but I also don't think you are characterizing my position accurately, but I won't go into why per your request. Best wishes and hope to cross paths again in the future on friendlier terms. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Im sure we will, take care. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy
Hey Nableezy,

I have seen you edit wikipedia for a long time and I know you care a lot about this project, which includes accuracy and adhering to WP:V. Can you take a look at my latest comment on the issue of Taliban banning primary education for women? I think its important that whatever we put on the front page of wikipedia should not be misleading.VR talk 21:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Times is also reporting the same, The Taliban have banned girls from attending primary school, the day after excluding women from university education. They also decreed women would no longer be able to work in any form of educational institutions in a further blow to personal freedoms in Afghanistan. The decisions were made during a meeting between clerics, community leaders, police, the General Directorate of Intelligence and the Ministry of Vice and Virtue. They were declared to be temporary measures, but were introduced as such in the 1990s and never lifted by the previous Taliban regime. I know there some older stories, but even I dont see any reason to doubt these are accurate. I dont see anything really disputing it either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to engage. I've responded at WP:ITN and hope we can sort it out there.VR talk 22:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Al Azhar Mosque
I just wanted to say that your work here has been amazing! I am interested in Mosques and Egyptian Culture so when i found out that it was your work I wanted to say thanks! Scientelensia (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * that is incredibly kind of you to say, thank you so much. I never really finished that article to be honest, I still have the sources to finish out the architecture section as I think the history is all done, but have just lacked the time and/or discipline to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll give you two years to get off your arse and finish it, you lazy prick. Then, if it's still lingering in limbo, I'll come your way all mouthguns shooting, or, in case I'm in a circle somewhat lower than limbo, I'll channel that order to some other loutish wikipedian still up here and short of teetering on his last mental legs.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You should know by now my best work is getting you to do it for me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

killed not murdered
That WP:DEATHS flow chart was developed because of even more egregious cases...see what had been Shooting of. Literally you could read the entire lead and not be sure whether anyone had actually died rather than had simply been shot.

We discovered there was a clear preference for describing a death in terms that focussed on something other than the actual death depending on various sociopolitical issues. In the US, Black people more often were shot or died. White people more often were killed or murdered. @Coffeeandcrumbs was the prime initiator of this. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get it, I agree it was a step forward, and Ive had the argument before where I was accused of "playing the race card" by asking the standard be followed, noting that it did help deal with the bias in language with the specific issue of black and brown people dying and white people being murdered as the standard. But I do think that it lacks nuance, as, for example, the majority of murders that result in no charge much less a conviction arent suddenly not murders because of that. For example, in a city near and dear to me, a bit over half of homicides are supposedly cleared by homicide detectives, but less than half of those clearances even result in charges, with a substantial number of them attributed to other deceased individuals and never charged. Does it mean they were not murders or we cannot call them murders? Either way, I really dont get how anybody is taking that guideline to this level of extreme, making us pretend a crime could not have occured if a conviction has not been secured. Losing the forest for the trees situation imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeez, that Chicago report. That really sucks. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chuckles in Chicagoan. You want CPD level sucky, try literal black sites the CIA would be proud of. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spamming sockpuppeter
Hello, you're very active on Israel-Palestine articles so you might have heard about some Israeli (I assume) user mass emailing others into RfCs and discussions. is another puppet of this guy. If you know what I am talking about, please report him on the main account's sockpuppet investigation subpage. If you don't, my apologies. Super  Ψ   Dro  18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SuperDro, that would be Yaniv Horon. You mind saying which discussion you were alerted to? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here and here. Super   Ψ   Dro  18:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right, thank you so much. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nableezy Please note the mass emailing issue on RfC’s if you didn’t yet. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I put the notavote template up. Not a whole lot more to do tbh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Voided
This should be revoked and moved back to the pre-socking version. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * meh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello, Nableezy! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 22:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your view on this?
Nableezy, hi! This article here appeared today in my News Feed and I wanted to get you opinion about what should be done here. Pakistan is an Islamic country and is sensitive about how certain issues are portrayed on Wikipedia. Any opinion?Davidbena (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing, David. That is already duly reported at Censorship of Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine. The only reason why I asked your expertise is that I think it would be unfortunate if Wikipedia is ever blocked in Pakistan, requiring users to access the site through a VPN.Davidbena (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Government authorities, esp. in the numerous banana republics and states around the world, always underestimate the intelligence of internet users. Any weiki article can be emailed by a copyandpaste process or with an attachment, for example. All you need is a relative or friend abroad. More generally, all wikis show bias, and all it needs for anyone bilingual is to click on the parallel articles in another language to measure the difference, and see what is highlighted and what is repressed from a national readership in any case.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Nablus Attack
What can I do to improve the article, in your eyes? I admire your knowledge and dedication to this topic, and would appreciate any insight you can provide to improve and save this article. For example, if I remove all references to lynching both on the linked article and on the Nablus attack article, will that help improve the latter article? Is there anything I can do to make the article better?Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You cant call something a lynching based on two people getting minor scratches. You cant call something an attempted lynching based on a blog and a twitter account. You cant multiply a single wire service piece x15 because you found 15 places it was printed. You cant call something an act of terrorism without sources for it. You cannot connect topics that sources do not connect. The article has to follow the sources, not create a narrative and look for whatever crap website you can find that supports it. Besides all that, this is basic crime blotter material, and not an encyclopedia article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment and to share your insight considering your knowledge and expertise on the subject. I would be happy to follow your advice snd remove the mentions of lynching and terrorism if you feel it would improve the article. I have now removed the mentions of lynching. In my opinion this is and should be an encyclopedia article, and I do not have any narrative in mind and I will follow the sources and improve the article with your input in mind, and hopefully it will meet your approval.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1RR
I know you know that all content related to Israel-Palestine is under a 1RR. You have made two reverts of the same material at Falafel. Can you please revert yourself? -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 18:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first revert is WP:BANREVERT and WP:A/I/PIA exempts reverts that enforce the 500/30 rule. Is that not the case here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * pinging Guerillero, sorry should have done it in the reply. If you say it is not exempt Ill gladly self-revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first one was exempt, but that doesn't mean one should revert the same content a second time -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 18:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont understand, if the first one is exempt Ive only made one revert? And that revert was to an edit made without any comment on the talk page, saying that needs consensus first (well yeah, try saying something on the talk page then), and that It looks like unnecessary POV (well it looks like it is not unnecessary POV but rather summarizing material in the body into the lead). Beyond that, you dont find it even a little curious when an editors very first edit to an article, having never been on the talk page, is a straight revert following a known canvassing sockpuppeteer having their latest sock blocked? Maybe I was a little quick with the revert back, but the edit and the summary were in my view unwarranted, so I used the single revert Ive made in that article in a few months on it. I can self-revert though, but I do not think it necessary or even appropriate tbh. But no worries, self-reverting shortly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Guerillero: I also don't get this. I thought the entire meaning of certain edits being 'exempt' here was that they were exempt from being added to tallies of reverts. So, by the book, wasn't Nableezy's tally of reverts for the purposes of examination with respect to the restrictions exactly one? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But also, given the lack of any response on the talk page, Im going to restore that now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Operation Patient
Where would be a good place for this? I believe this source is thoroughly reliable, but there might not be enough information for a stand-alone article. Zerotalk 13:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time I asked to continue with the series of articles on the occupation with the next one being Israeli deportations of Palestinians from the West Bank or some such title, but alas our talented friend hasnt had the time or inclination to do the whole thing for me. Think this would belong in that, and absent many more sources about this specifically agree it is not a stand-alone article. In the meantime, Israeli occupation of the West Bank would be the spot imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fucken duty calls agin? Tomorrow I'll be bushwalking, scanning Normandy woods with binoculars as a local ornithologist identifies birds for me by their song, but if y'all gather up enuf written sources, I'll get round to doing that, I guess. Suggested title -the Palestinian diaspora, 70CE revisited:)Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought podcast referred to a list of names of the members of a whale family. In any case, one can't treat a podcast as a source, ay? or did I miss the written version?Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I put something at Israeli occupation of the West Bank but feel free to tweak it. Zerotalk 11:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's this and can at least use the summaries. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be included, but doesn't seem to be the same operation. Hard to be sure because of the secrecy though. Zerotalk 00:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You working on this?
...should we do a report? Moxy - 21:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , it was obvious but Im not sure its actually a SOCK violation. They made this new account because the old one had their extended-confirmed removed for gaming and nobody ever thought it was a good idea to give it back. I think at this point you may be able to argue that this is a return to previous bad behavior, but I think it would be better to just focus on this account and any poor editing and deal with the editing, not as a sockpuppet. But its already been admitted to, see here. The admin hasnt seen fit to do anything about it so meh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting...same stuff Qplb191 vs Fun71528 makes it seem multiple editors have the same request. I am more concern about comprehension level. Both accounts seem to have the same edit concerns raised by multiple editors. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the competence issues are definitely there, but I cant honestly say Id expect it to go anywhere if reported. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What a mess
Has there been a further substantive discussion since this sock-infested debacle of one? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, and too old to ask for a recount. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be some mechanism for tagging outcomes like that which reflect huge undue sock input damage. I lost count, rereading it, after 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its four I think, Icewhiz with Bob not snob, 11Fox11, Hippeus, and Yaniv with Aroma Stylish. Ill tag it though <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there an official statute of limitations then? Maybe needs tweaking to not reward the socks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe a new RFC at RSN? (where the situation at the previous one can be mentioned). Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unlike edits by banned editors or socks, which can be removed, the outcome of an evaluation at places like RSN, if plagued by socks, blocking a closure on the basis of a consensus, will continue to affect wikipedia, and thus allow the socks to exercise an abiding influence in the future. The consensus of serious editors was clear, but Memri didn't receive the blacklisting it deserves solely because of the disruptive noise factor.  So it should be raised again, with an introductory link to the earlier discussion, and a list of all of the editors who later turned out to be socks and whose protests influenced the closure.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, it was no consensus anyway, have no problem removing MEMRI for being a lying propaganda outfit regardless and Ill continue to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)