Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 19 September 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Kafka Award

Cheers - I never got any awards or barnstars until I got (absurdly) topic banned. I should do it more often! Maybe one day we'll get some kind of ArbCom structure where the people involved do more than just sit back, allow reams of evidence to be posted about content, relevant policy and editor behaviour and then just casually decide to ... topic ban every single editor whose name they can see in front of them, and then proceed to interpret the scope of that ban as harshly as they can. --Nickhh (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

common traits

Apparently I remind someone of you. Needless to say, I felt that was a very nice compliment. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I love the "no offence, but you remind me of .." - he's a funny guy that one (although actually much better than he used to be), as are plenty of others here who have somehow managed to escape topic bans either recently or in the past. Sane outsiders who at least try to engage (most of the time) in reasoned debate are purged, while involved partisans who seem unable to take a step back from their own viewpoints get to rampage over any article they wish to and insert all sorts of oddities into them. Oh well, I'm currently enjoying a semi-retirement, and I'm not sure this place is significantly worse than it would be anyway without my involvement. I'll vote for you if you stand for ArbCom though! --Nickhh (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ps: a nice touch that ArbCom have now quietly amended their ruling, in an implicit acknowledgement that I was well within my rights to continue editing re the Lebanon stuff on the Independent page under the actual terms of the original ruling, despite all the criticism heaped on me for trying to do that. As noted above, at least that's been sorted (partly thanks to you)

Yeah, that whole thing was bullshit. You were arguing that there is a disconnect between articles related to the Arab/Israeli conflict and edits in other articles related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Everybody who read that either had it go completely over there head or just dismissed it without actually looking at the wording of the decision. You were right, and that they changed the ruling should make that clear. You were also right on the other page as well and that you cannot continue to show that same dedication to not making this "encyclopedia" a collection of bullshit shows how dumb that decision was. As far as ArbCom voting, fuck that, I am not a fan of lynch mobs so I don't think I will ever try to volunteer to join one. Enjoy your retirement, Nableezy (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nickhh! Are you still here? just wanted to touch base with someone from the old crew. I just need to check in weith you. it seems strange that Arbcom simply banned everyone who was active in that topic area. I don't quite get it. how are you? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Happily in semi-retirement, for all the reasons stated above. And increasingly confirmed in my belief that this place is more like an asylum of some sort, open to everyone to come and throw in their random opinions about the world, rather than a place for serious and disinterested people to try and create something approaching an accurate, neutral and reliable record of things. And of course a place where those who edit only in one topic area, seemingly from an ideological viewpoint, are treated the same when it comes to any dispute as those generalist editors who at least try to stand back and take a more objective view, and everyone gets hit with the same big stick. Anyway, enough complaining .... --Nickhh (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the reply! I certainly understand your feelings on that. It's understandable to feel that way after all the edit conflicts etc which have happened. hope to see more group types of efforts, etc. see you! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

anti semitism, the Guardian, ARBCOM, dejavu

I remember some discussion regarding your edits to The Independent after ARBCOM ruling. I did not watch the issue that closely so I may be wrong but I thought there was an agreement that controversies regarding anti-Israel, anti-semitism, etc. are all included in the topic ban. I'm very lazy these days and don't have the patience to track down diffs so I'll just broach the issue directly to you. Are you sure you comments regarding the balance of article space pertaining to allegations of antisemitism within the The Guardian (which is based on its anti-Israel comments) are allowed under the ARBCOM ruling? Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

that was specifically about the Independent's coverage of the Lebanon war and their "lying", which was decided fell under said topic ban. Not general discussion of antisemitism. nableezy - 07:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The basis for the antisemitic allegations is the Guardian's anti-Israel positions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they are actually arguing that the reason for their so-called "anti-Israel" positions is their supposed antisemitism, but how does a discussion if whether a paper is biased against Israel so then antisemitic related to the Arab/Israeli conflict (the topic area covered under the topic ban). Coverage of Israel is not exclusive to coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict, and it was decided that discussing coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict was prohibited. But Nickhh is able to speak for himself so I will step away now. nableezy - 08:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, haven't really been around. Thanks Brewcrewer for not actually trying to "report" me for this (even if it wouldn't make a practical difference one way or another), but I would make the points that - the ArbCom verdict was changed to post-facto catch the brief comments I made on the Indy page, which were in no way related substantively to the I-P conflict; the comments on the Guardian page had even less to do with Israel per se, but were to do with the weight one editor was trying to attach to one throwaway and non-specific comment by Julie Burchill (look her up) about anti-semitism. Oddly, perhaps, I just genuinely think that pages here are best served by the avoidance of any obsessive focus on ethnic or religious "nationalism", one way or the other, whether it relates to Britain, Israel or Belgium. But hey, you get told off and sanctioned for that, apparently by a bunch of American high school students. Way to build an encyclopedia, it's funny. --Nickhh (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick, if you're speaking of me, I hope you understand that the issue is wider than that. I, also, declined to "report" you, as I was, perhaps, your biggest defender in your arbcom case (much as it may have pained me to do so). IronDuke 03:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I do recall that, and thank you for it (much as it pains me to say so). I still believe that every single "Criticism of ... " and "Allegations of ... " page or section/subsection should be deleted forthwith, in their entirety, and their mostly op-ed and partisan sourced contents very definitely not merged into the main articles. But that's just me and my battle against political essays, which are even worse when written by committee. There was once a "Criticism of Star Trek" article here. I rest my case. --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You see how your naked and obvious pro Star Trek partisanship is part of the problem, don't you? I bet you even think Captain Kirk was the greatest of all Starship Captains. Seriously, I appreciate what you're saying, though some crit sections seem to very difficult to merge into the general article (at least to me). And as for "Allegations of" articles, do feel most free to start an AFD on this one. Cheers. IronDuke 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub, such a nomination would be a clear cut violation of Nicks topic ban. nableezy - 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha! You caught me suborning arbcom ban violations! I was actually going to speak with you about that very ban, but was planning to wait.... IronDuke 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(sorry to be lurking but ...) i nearly choked on a sip of water when i read that, nick. you know, i can think of alot of criticism of star trek, the bad sets, the overacting ... what a great idea! lets do "criticism of dijeridoos" - they're so annoying! - and "allegations of unpleasantness against patchouli." (still laughing) untwirl(talk) 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was always really shit when a ship was hit by a torpedo or phaser or whatever, and then for some reason a console on the bridge would explode or shoot sparks, even though the main impact was on a totally different part of the vessel. And Kirk was this slightly weird, preening, egocentric thug as far as I could ever tell. Er, anyway .. if I recall correctly, the point of the page – as openly admitted by its creator – was to “prove” that Star Wars was “better” than Star Trek. To me that sums up the whole problem – just substitute Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky for each of those, and we’re in exactly the same bizarre place.

Anyway, as for the apartheid analogy/allegations page (since you asked ID) – I was vaguely aware of that dispute a while ago, but stayed away, as to be honest I always was ambivalent about the page, and it’s always attracted political grandstanding, as all those pages do. Having said that, it is a notable theme and topic, even if you disagree with the conclusions of those (in the real world) who promote the comparison. A former US president even wrote a book whose title referred explicitly to the idea, and it is commonly referred to in other commentary, including within Israel as far as I’m aware. It’s certainly way more mainstream and prevalent as a concept or term than things such as Eurabia, Pallywood, False Moshe Ya'alon quotation and Temple Denial among many others, half of which seem to be little more than obscure propaganda phrases dreamt up by Dore Gold or whoever over their cornflakes one day, which then swill around the fringes of the blogosphere without ever reaching mainstream or polite discourse, but which nonetheless get WP pages all to themselves. --Nickhh (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

you have been mentioned

in this ridiculous request for enforcement. doesn't look like its going anywhere but thought you should know. untwirl(talk) 18:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - I had noticed that, but as you say, no one (quite rightly) seems to be taking either claim that seriously, so thought it best for me to steer clear myself. I really don't think Jaakobou does himself many favours by running to WP:AE like this about nothing much, and throwing in mendacious assertions that Pedrito was topic banned for "tag teaming" or whatever while he's at it. Especially given his own history on I-P pages, and also since both he and Shuki were actually engaged briefly in commenting and/or edit warring on J&S-related pages. It's only a fluke that they weren't named as parties in the ArbCom case at the beginning - if they had been of course, they would have been swept up in the mass ban along with everyone else. A little humility and discretion wouldn't go amiss, you'd have thought. --Nickhh (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more about me than pedrito or you. A 24 hour block isnt going to do anything to either of you, chances are you wont even log in to notice it. But he keeps trying to bring me up, seeing as how your actual "violation" took place on the AfD and not my talk page but he still brings up the talk page. I would say something, but I just think it is funny and dont want to ruin the joke. nableezy - 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew it. nableezy - 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. The re-appearance of rather pompous admonishments NoCal used to dish out to people - usually along the lines of "I've warned you about this, don't do it again" - were always a bit of a giveaway, as with this one here. User:Canadian Monkey used to speak in a similar tone, which is why I thought it might be them (as you said, maybe they're all the same person). Anyway, maybe I shouldn't be giving them tips on things to avoid next time they try to come back in. I think it says something about their desperation and commitment to the cause (or perhaps it simply flags up how much CAMERA or the Israeli government hasbara committee pays) that they keep on trying to come back to the fight again and again. Exactly the kind of editor who is rightly blocked from editing in contentious areas. --Nickhh (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom restrictions

I have reverted this edit of yours per your ARBCOM restrictions Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Nickhh_restricted and the disruptive summary. Please notice that you can be blocked if you continue. I am not an expert in the subject area but usually removing of large blocks of referenced text without any attempt to explain on the talk page is considered a very bad practice regardless of Arbcom decisions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure of the relation to the ArbCom decision tbh, nor that reversion of my edit is justified even if it were related (surely content is what matters here? Do you think it is acceptable to smear a prominent Jewish academic as an anti-Semite and Nazi? That is what the "referenced text" was doing after all). I will acknowledge that my outright removal of the material, and the edit summary used, was perhaps not the best way to deal with the undeniable problem there. However, when one spends a considerable amount of time one day editing pages on what are quite clearly modern day fascist/Nazi groups (eg the English Defence League and the Stop the Islamification of Europe), while avoiding - probably correctly, per WP:NPOV - getting too involved in describing them as such, to find that the pages about individuals who are manifestly not Nazis nonetheless include incredibly loaded hints to that effect (see Marc Garlasco as well as Israel Shahak) is a little disconcerting, and probably requires some drastic action of some sort. Perhaps you could at least do a little reading in the "subject area" of all the above, and explain where you see the greater problem, before pontificating on my talk page and reverting my edits with grandstanding but irrelevant edit summaries. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nickhh. Brandon (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)