ScottishFinnishRadish goes on a Tban rampage

[orangepi]

Andrevan declares a wiki-break, which lasts all of six hours.

Meanwhile, Nishidani shows up to commit a topic-ban violation at AE (his words, not mine) for no good reason.

What a fucking joke.

[nableezy]

Andrevan declares a wiki-break, which lasts all of six hours.

[GizzyCatBella]

.. yet another appeal has just been run towards the rookie Scottish Radish from Finland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _by_Iennes

[Zoll]

SFR did nothing wrong here.

Ban them all.

What I find funny about this are the histrionics over (checks notes) a Topic Ban. Y'all shoulda seen back in the bad ol' days when admins would hardblock your IP address for speaking ill of their dog.

Topic bans are really funny things. They are basically magical incantations spells that are cast with an aim toward future software enforcement. It's amazing to me how many of y'all just accept them as though they are actually doing anything.

I generally think they should be done away with, but recognize that they're so popular an enforcement action we just gotta live with them. I would much prefer the too rarely used system of blocking users from specific pages. But it seems to me that no one wants to actually do the hard work of figuring out how to do that properly in more complicated cases.

If only they'd made me wikipope, eh?

Software isn't a bad idea, each Tban shouldn't be able to edit pages with specific categories. The rest should be manually enforced. And if there's a mistake in categorization, there should be a noticeboard for that. And admins should be able to manually add pages to a certain Tban.

[Zoll]

Statement by Zero0000

Anyone who is not upset by the current war in the Middle East has a heart of stone. It is simply not humanly possible to cover it on wikipedia without a lot of argument, pushing of competing narratives, and occasional incivility. Instead of punishing editors who use a rude word now and then, we should acknowledge editors who honestly strive to maintain a high article standard. Nableezy is one of the leading lights in that respect, in line with his long eminent career here. Concerning his recent behavior, I refer to Levivich's answer with which I concur: between the warning and the TBAN, Nableezy's behavior was exemplary and there was no cause to escalate the warning to a TBAN. Zerotalk 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Basically saying conflict makes people emotional, thus incivility is justified. Let's violate wikipedia rules.

[Dan of La Mancha]

Software isn't a bad idea, each Tban shouldn't be able to edit pages with specific categories. The rest should be manually enforced. And if there's a mistake in categorization, there should be a noticeboard for that. And admins should be able to manually add pages to a certain Tban.

How would that work in the current case? Jesus (T-H-L) isn't part of the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" category tree. And sure, that page could be manually added to the Tban, but then the argument would just move over to, say, Nazareth (disambiguation), or anywhere else.

Edit: And I'm posting on the wrong thread, but the point still stands. Tbannable behaviour is occuring at Jesus and Falafal and all kinds of places that you wouldn't necessarily predict.

[Zoll]

Software isn't a bad idea, each Tban shouldn't be able to edit pages with specific categories. The rest should be manually enforced. And if there's a mistake in categorization, there should be a noticeboard for that. And admins should be able to manually add pages to a certain Tban.

How would that work in the current case? Jesus (T-H-L) isn't part of the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" category tree. And sure, that page could be manually added to the Tban, but then the argument would just move over to, say, Nazareth (disambiguation), or anywhere else.

If it violates a I/P Tban broadly constructed, then add it.

[Arishok]

Nableezy's appeal looks like it's got a small shot of success but more on ROPE/net-positive grounds than erroneous sanction grounds.

Iennes' appeal has no chance.

Also, the main reason admins tend not to unilaterally issue these kinds of sanctions, especially against long-term contributors, is that the resulting drama is inevitable and extremely time-consuming. Without comment on the merit of these sanctions (as I haven't even read the underlying dispute), this kind of (harsh, unilateral) sanction is, I think, exactly what Arbcom has in mind when it authorizes a CTOP regime, it's just that admins are usually too shy to actually execute Arbcom's intent. You could see it in the AA3 case where Arbcom expressed a degree of frustration at what they perceived to be the hesitancy of admins to impose TBans in the area.

[charliemouse]

Nableezy's appeal looks like it's got a small shot of success but more on ROPE/net-positive grounds than erroneous sanction grounds.

Iennes' appeal has no chance.

Also, the main reason admins tend not to unilaterally issue these kinds of sanctions, especially against long-term contributors, is that the resulting drama is inevitable and extremely time-consuming. Without comment on the merit of these sanctions (as I haven't even read the underlying dispute), this kind of (harsh, unilateral) sanction is, I think, exactly what Arbcom has in mind when it authorizes a CTOP regime, it's just that admins are usually too shy to actually execute Arbcom's intent. You could see it in the AA3 case where Arbcom expressed a degree of frustration at what they perceived to be the hesitancy of admins to impose TBans in the area.

I agree, and the elephant in the room is that Nableezy has a lot more time onwiki than SFR. That is one reason why usually editors with limited content-writing are not made admins. I do believe the Tbans he meted out are correct.

[rnu]

Nableezy's appeal looks like it's got a small shot of success but more on ROPE/net-positive grounds than erroneous sanction grounds.

Iennes' appeal has no chance.

Also, the main reason admins tend not to unilaterally issue these kinds of sanctions, especially against long-term contributors, is that the resulting drama is inevitable and extremely time-consuming. Without comment on the merit of these sanctions (as I haven't even read the underlying dispute), this kind of (harsh, unilateral) sanction is, I think, exactly what Arbcom has in mind when it authorizes a CTOP regime, it's just that admins are usually too shy to actually execute Arbcom's intent. You could see it in the AA3 case where Arbcom expressed a degree of frustration at what they perceived to be the hesitancy of admins to impose TBans in the area.
(Emphasis added)

Not having to make the determination and dealing with the fallout alone could possibly help here, too. It would distribute the responsibility. Having a two admin requirement would make blocks and bans less likely in many cases, but maybe more likely in others.

[Vigilant]

Nableezy's appeal looks like it's got a small shot of success but more on ROPE/net-positive grounds than erroneous sanction grounds.

Iennes' appeal has no chance.

Also, the main reason admins tend not to unilaterally issue these kinds of sanctions, especially against long-term contributors, is that the resulting drama is inevitable and extremely time-consuming. Without comment on the merit of these sanctions (as I haven't even read the underlying dispute), this kind of (harsh, unilateral) sanction is, I think, exactly what Arbcom has in mind when it authorizes a CTOP regime, it's just that admins are usually too shy to actually execute Arbcom's intent. You could see it in the AA3 case where Arbcom expressed a degree of frustration at what they perceived to be the hesitancy of admins to impose TBans in the area.
(Emphasis added)

Not having to make the determination and dealing with the fallout alone could possibly help here, too. It would distribute the responsibility. Having a two admin requirement would make blocks and bans less likely in many cases, but maybe more likely in others.

Stop trying to make fetch happen...

[rnu]

Nableezy's appeal looks like it's got a small shot of success but more on ROPE/net-positive grounds than erroneous sanction grounds.

Iennes' appeal has no chance.

Also, the main reason admins tend not to unilaterally issue these kinds of sanctions, especially against long-term contributors, is that the resulting drama is inevitable and extremely time-consuming. Without comment on the merit of these sanctions (as I haven't even read the underlying dispute), this kind of (harsh, unilateral) sanction is, I think, exactly what Arbcom has in mind when it authorizes a CTOP regime, it's just that admins are usually too shy to actually execute Arbcom's intent. You could see it in the AA3 case where Arbcom expressed a degree of frustration at what they perceived to be the hesitancy of admins to impose TBans in the area.
(Emphasis added)

Not having to make the determination and dealing with the fallout alone could possibly help here, too. It would distribute the responsibility. Having a two admin requirement would make blocks and bans less likely in many cases, but maybe more likely in others.

Stop trying to make fetch happen...

I'm not trying to make anything happen. I am under no illusion that any structural reform that could make Wikipedia better/less bad is DOA. I'm just screaming into the void. Isn't that what we're all doing here?

[rnu]

Andrevan declares a wiki-break, which lasts all of six hours.

Meanwhile, Nishidani shows up to commit a topic-ban violation at AE (his words, not mine) for no good reason.

What a fucking joke.

I wonder whether Transgenerational trauma (T-H-L) falls within ARBPIA broadly construed. The theory was first developed when children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors had excessive rates of mental health issues. And there is a lot of talk about transgenerational/intergenerational/generational trauma with respect to both Palestinians and Israelis.(*)
Note that I am not implying that andre's contributions to the article talk page are in any way problematic. I just wonder whether the article could turn out to be a landmine.

[Vigilant]

Nableezy's appeal looks like it's got a small shot of success but more on ROPE/net-positive grounds than erroneous sanction grounds.

Iennes' appeal has no chance.

Also, the main reason admins tend not to unilaterally issue these kinds of sanctions, especially against long-term contributors, is that the resulting drama is inevitable and extremely time-consuming. Without comment on the merit of these sanctions (as I haven't even read the underlying dispute), this kind of (harsh, unilateral) sanction is, I think, exactly what Arbcom has in mind when it authorizes a CTOP regime, it's just that admins are usually too shy to actually execute Arbcom's intent. You could see it in the AA3 case where Arbcom expressed a degree of frustration at what they perceived to be the hesitancy of admins to impose TBans in the area.
(Emphasis added)

Not having to make the determination and dealing with the fallout alone could possibly help here, too. It would distribute the responsibility. Having a two admin requirement would make blocks and bans less likely in many cases, but maybe more likely in others.

Stop trying to make fetch happen...

I'm not trying to make anything happen. I am under no illusion that any structural reform that could make Wikipedia better/less bad is DOA. I'm just screaming into the void. Isn't that what we're all doing here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubd-spHN-0

[rnu]

Looks like Nableezy would have had a good shot at getting his sanction lifted or at least reduced in length or replaced with a softer sanction if he had shown more (fake) contrition. The "I didn't (really) do anything wrong defense" on the other hand seems to be going down as expected.

[Bezdomni]

What I find funny about this are the histrionics over (checks notes) a Topic Ban.

3 months away from that cesspit should really be viewed as a gift.

Credit where it's due, SFR does sometimes have good, if overly clement, instincts.

[orangepi]

Black Kite and Euryalus jumping in on team "Nableezy did nothing wrong ... or at least not enough wrong after his second (third?) warning this month".

And yet nobody seems to dispute that, at this point in time, Nableezy actually is a hyper-aggressive POV-pushing SPA. When was his last edit outside the topic-area?

[MrErnie]

I had a funny feeling Black Kite was going to weigh in and support Nableezy. His shift from Corbett enabler, to whatever you want to call him now, has been beautiful to watch. Two completely different editors.

[Vigilant]

I had a funny feeling Black Kite was going to weigh in and support Nableezy. His shift from Corbett enabler, to whatever you want to call him now, has been beautiful to watch. Two completely different editors.

I was just gonna say, "Nableezy is the new Corbett."

The spice must flow.

[FelinaLavandula]

I like Nableezy, and this is pretty vibes-based, but appealing a *temporary* tban immediately isn’t a good look. Like, at least spend a few weeks puttering around in a different topic area first.

[nableezy]

Black Kite and Euryalus jumping in on team "Nableezy did nothing wrong ... or at least not enough wrong after his second (third?) warning this month".

And yet nobody seems to dispute that, at this point in time, Nableezy actually is a hyper-aggressive POV-pushing SPA. When was his last edit outside the topic-area?

a few days ago?. But accuracy never really been your thing when it comes to me has it?

[orangepi]

Black Kite and Euryalus jumping in on team "Nableezy did nothing wrong ... or at least not enough wrong after his second (third?) warning this month".

And yet nobody seems to dispute that, at this point in time, Nableezy actually is a hyper-aggressive POV-pushing SPA. When was his last edit outside the topic-area?

a few days ago?. But accuracy never really been your thing when it comes to me has it?

You could have pointed out your recent RFA vote as not being in the topic-area as well.

But "substantially all" is beyond dispute; you choose to be pedantic to ignore the facts. I just double-checked; of your last 250 mainspace edits I see one (a revert on Lauren Boebert) that isn't ARBPIA-related.

[Vigilant]

I like Nableezy, and this is pretty vibes-based, but appealing a *temporary* tban immediately isn’t a good look. Like, at least spend a few weeks puttering around in a different topic area first.

Truth be told, so do I.

It's just remarkable that one person out of that entire shitshow is getting high level support.

A pox on both their houses.

[Midsize Jake]

I just double-checked; of your last 250 mainspace edits I see one (a revert on Lauren Boebert) that isn't ARBPIA-related.

You could probably make that claim for all of his activity since Oct. 6, but what of it? And more importantly, what do you expect? There's a war on! Lots of Wikipedians who have a direct interest in a major event like that do pretty much the exact same thing.

That shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not he should be "topic-banned." Personally I'd say his behavior (including here on this site) has actually been pretty good, especially considering the circumstances. You could argue that he lacks objectivity, and you're probably right that he has friends who don't want him blocked etc., but that isn't supposed to be a sufficient rationale in itself for those kinds of penalties.

[arkon]

I just double-checked; of your last 250 mainspace edits I see one (a revert on Lauren Boebert) that isn't ARBPIA-related.

You could probably make that claim for all of his activity since Oct. 6, but what of it? And more importantly, what do you expect? There's a war on! Lots of Wikipedians who have a direct interest in a major event like that do pretty much the exact same thing.

That shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not he should be "topic-banned." Personally I'd say his behavior (including here on this site) has actually been pretty good, especially considering the circumstances. You could argue that he lacks objectivity, and you're probably right that he has friends who don't want him blocked etc., but that isn't supposed to be a sufficient rationale in itself for those kinds of penalties.

They've been min/max'ing the entire conflict, the blind spot here still astounds me.

Good, but too short, Tbans.

[nableezy]

Black Kite and Euryalus jumping in on team "Nableezy did nothing wrong ... or at least not enough wrong after his second (third?) warning this month".

And yet nobody seems to dispute that, at this point in time, Nableezy actually is a hyper-aggressive POV-pushing SPA. When was his last edit outside the topic-area?

a few days ago?. But accuracy never really been your thing when it comes to me has it?

You could have pointed out your recent RFA vote as not being in the topic-area as well.

But "substantially all" is beyond dispute; you choose to be pedantic to ignore the facts. I just double-checked; of your last 250 mainspace edits I see one (a revert on Lauren Boebert) that isn't ARBPIA-related.

My last 500 mainspace edits go back to November 6th. I wonder if anything has been happening in the world during that time that might have my attention? But yes, I have largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically the human rights of the Palestinians, for the majority of my time. It's a topic that I care about, know a bit about, and feel that Wikipedia's coverage is, or has been, lacking. The fact that it took me multiple years, and topic bans, to include the single most anodyne and notable fact about Israeli settlements, that they are illegal under international law, in their articles shows why; simple things take a gargantuan amount of time and effort to accomplish. And how much more time and effort do you expect me to spend on Wikipedia?

But, the more important, and risible, part of your statement is Nableezy is a POV-pusher. Bullshit. I follow the sources. I was the one who brought HRW saying the al-Ahli Hospital explosion was likely from a Palestinian rocket for example. You think I am POV-pushing because I push back on propaganda like somebody making up that Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace (they dont, they sold water and electricity and allowed limited in amount and type of food through the blockade, and as occupying power they are obligated to do so). You think I POV-push because you either dont know what the sources say or dont care. You, like most people with next to no knowledge on these topics, think that because you are VerySmart™ that your view is what is "neutral". But you arent as smart as you think, and since you, like every other person who has accused me of POV-pushing, are unable to show how I have attempted to skew things away from what the sources say I dont think I need to spend any more of my time showing that you are not as smart as you think you are.

[nableezy]

I like Nableezy, and this is pretty vibes-based, but appealing a *temporary* tban immediately isn’t a good look. Like, at least spend a few weeks puttering around in a different topic area first.

Truth be told, so do I.

[Elinruby]

Black Kite and Euryalus jumping in on team "Nableezy did nothing wrong ... or at least not enough wrong after his second (third?) warning this month".

And yet nobody seems to dispute that, at this point in time, Nableezy actually is a hyper-aggressive POV-pushing SPA. When was his last edit outside the topic-area?

a few days ago?. But accuracy never really been your thing when it comes to me has it?

You could have pointed out your recent RFA vote as not being in the topic-area as well.

But "substantially all" is beyond dispute; you choose to be pedantic to ignore the facts. I just double-checked; of your last 250 mainspace edits I see one (a revert on Lauren Boebert) that isn't ARBPIA-related.

My last 500 mainspace edits go back to November 6th. I wonder if anything has been happening in the world during that time that might have my attention? But yes, I have largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically the human rights of the Palestinians, for the majority of my time. It's a topic that I care about, know a bit about, and feel that Wikipedia's coverage is, or has been, lacking. The fact that it took me multiple years, and topic bans, to include the single most anodyne and notable fact about Israeli settlements, that they are illegal under international law, in their articles shows why; simple things take a gargantuan amount of time and effort to accomplish. And how much more time and effort do you expect me to spend on Wikipedia?

But, the more important, and risible, part of your statement is Nableezy is a POV-pusher. Bullshit. I follow the sources. I was the one who brought HRW saying the al-Ahli Hospital explosion was likely from a Palestinian rocket for example. You think I am POV-pushing because I push back on propaganda like somebody making up that Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace (they dont, they sold water and electricity and allowed limited in amount and type of food through the blockade, and as occupying power they are obligated to do so). You think I POV-push because you either dont know what the sources say or dont care. You, like most people with next to no knowledge on these topics, think that because you are VerySmart™ that your view is what is "neutral". But you arent as smart as you think, and since you, like every other person who has accused me of POV-pushing, are unable to show how I have attempted to skew things away from what the sources say I dont think I need to spend any more of my time showing that you are not as smart as you think you are.

Steady. I didn't like you (erroneously) saying that I edit war either, but as someone who bears you no malice I'd just like to note that you are close to ranting, which would validate a perception you feel is false. And on which I am inclined to believe you, btw. Good editors trying to keep bullshit out of the encyclopedia get lumped in with the bullshitters. It's a flaw of the content-free governance system.

[MrErnie]

The real key here, to cinch up my Wikipedia pants, is good faith. I like Nableezy too, because they’re clearly operating in good faith. Others clearly aren’t, and they should get the permanent t-bans. This should be the key differentiator in the sanctions. Good faith editors get a pause and the bad faiths get the boot. It’s quite easy to distinguish between the two.

[orangepi]

Black Kite and Euryalus jumping in on team "Nableezy did nothing wrong ... or at least not enough wrong after his second (third?) warning this month".

And yet nobody seems to dispute that, at this point in time, Nableezy actually is a hyper-aggressive POV-pushing SPA. When was his last edit outside the topic-area?

a few days ago?. But accuracy never really been your thing when it comes to me has it?

You could have pointed out your recent RFA vote as not being in the topic-area as well.

But "substantially all" is beyond dispute; you choose to be pedantic to ignore the facts. I just double-checked; of your last 250 mainspace edits I see one (a revert on Lauren Boebert) that isn't ARBPIA-related.

My last 500 mainspace edits go back to November 6th. I wonder if anything has been happening in the world during that time that might have my attention? But yes, I have largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically the human rights of the Palestinians, for the majority of my time. It's a topic that I care about, know a bit about, and feel that Wikipedia's coverage is, or has been, lacking. The fact that it took me multiple years, and topic bans, to include the single most anodyne and notable fact about Israeli settlements, that they are illegal under international law, in their articles shows why; simple things take a gargantuan amount of time and effort to accomplish. And how much more time and effort do you expect me to spend on Wikipedia?

But, the more important, and risible, part of your statement is Nableezy is a POV-pusher. Bullshit. I follow the sources. I was the one who brought HRW saying the al-Ahli Hospital explosion was likely from a Palestinian rocket for example. You think I am POV-pushing because I push back on propaganda like somebody making up that Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace (they dont, they sold water and electricity and allowed limited in amount and type of food through the blockade, and as occupying power they are obligated to do so). You think I POV-push because you either dont know what the sources say or dont care. You, like most people with next to no knowledge on these topics, think that because you are VerySmart™ that your view is what is "neutral". But you arent as smart as you think, and since you, like every other person who has accused me of POV-pushing, are unable to show how I have attempted to skew things away from what the sources say I dont think I need to spend any more of my time showing that you are not as smart as you think you are.

Your insistence on escalating every disagreement like this is why I think a TBAN is well-deserved.

[Elinruby]

The real key here, to cinch up my Wikipedia pants, is good faith. I like Nableezy too, because they’re clearly operating in good faith. Others clearly aren’t, and they should get the permanent t-bans. This should be the key differentiator in the sanctions. Good faith editors get a pause and the bad faiths get the boot. It’s quite easy to distinguish between the two.

I kind of agree.

[nableezy]

Your insistence on escalating every disagreement like this is why I think a TBAN is well-deserved.

Nah, I have never given a fuck about you. Still dont tbh, but you keep coming at me with bullshit, and like I said earlier my biggest problem is I have a hard time not calling out bullshitters.

[andre]

If you have diffs, pound the diffs
If you have vibes, pound the vibes,
If you have nothing, pound the other editors around until they succumb, give up, get a little bit annoyed and sanctioned, then blocked because they were the ones who have civility applied to them and not you

[andre]

The Australian user Irtapil agrees with Elinruby
Do ya think maybe they could be sock puppets?? 'cause they agree?

[andre]

NOTE: MEAN JOKE NOT LITERAL REAL

[orangepi]

Thank you, Andre, for reminding me that there is at least one good excuse for Nableezy's hostile on-wiki comments.

[MrErnie]

Andre, dude. Stop.

[rnu]

For a Jewish guy, Levivich sure shows up like an old dollar bill that i left in my other pants to defend denialism and whitewashing of history. Are we sure he's Jewish? Have we checked, ya know? Although, that can go both ways. Maybe his father was Jewish but his mother was from a small village that was depopulated by the Stern gang in the 1948 Palestine war, which for some reason was at the inaccurately named title for years until moved in 2022 by this User:Andrevan

[andre]

The point is that emotional editors shouldn't edit these topics1
Nableezy cares too much and he can't help but pushing POV
ban me, too!
did i appeal?
I'm a NY Ashki Jew!
ban me1 I care to omuch!

[andre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ol ... ember_2022

[andre]

This a joke, btw, sorry if you didn't get it. I hve no idea if Levi is jewish. It was a name joke.

[rnu]

For a Jewish guy, Levivich sure shows up like an old dollar bill that i left in my other pants to defend denialism and whitewashing of history. Are we sure he's Jewish? Have we checked, ya know? Although, that can go both ways. Maybe his father was Jewish but his mother was from a small village that was depopulated by the Stern gang in the 1948 Palestine war, which for some reason was at the inaccurately named title for years until moved in 2022 by this User:Andrevan

This a joke, btw, sorry if you didn't get it. I hve no idea if Levi is jewish. It was a name joke.

I'd say that's a questionable joke at best. But I am relieved that you're not about to roll out the self-hating Jew trope.

[nableezy]

The point is that emotional editors shouldn't edit these topics1
Nableezy cares too much and he can't help but pushing POV
ban me, too!
did i appeal?
I'm a NY Ashki Jew!
ban me1 I care to omuch!

You did that same thing with the Trump ban. I would gladly impose a Trump TBAN on myself if the same could be applied to Winkelvi, MONGO, Atsme, etc. I never edited any Trump-related pages before last week and I'd just as soon not edit about him. Its like you think youre playing four dimensional chess and everybody else is too stupid to see it, but things like this is what a "battleground mentality" actually is. "If I can take out some other user then I will sacrifice myself." And I defy somebody to give an example of my "POV pushing" that is not me following the weight of the reliable sources.

[andre]

The point is that emotional editors shouldn't edit these topics1
Nableezy cares too much and he can't help but pushing POV
ban me, too!
did i appeal?
I'm a NY Ashki Jew!
ban me1 I care to omuch!

You did that same thing with the Trump ban. I would gladly impose a Trump TBAN on myself if the same could be applied to Winkelvi, MONGO, Atsme, etc. I never edited any Trump-related pages before last week and I'd just as soon not edit about him. Its like you think youre playing four dimensional chess and everybody else is too stupid to see it, but things like this is what a "battleground mentality" actually is. "If I can take out some other user then I will sacrifice myself." And I defy somebody to give an example of my "POV pushing" that is not me following the weight of the reliable sources.

yeah nableezy, after that, I apologized for battleground mentality, and I fell into that too, and so did you
that's why both bans are justified

[andre]

Andrevan declares a wiki-break, which lasts all of six hours.

Meanwhile, Nishidani shows up to commit a topic-ban violation at AE (his words, not mine) for no good reason.

What a fucking joke.

I wonder whether Transgenerational trauma (T-H-L) falls within ARBPIA broadly construed. The theory was first developed when children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors had excessive rates of mental health issues. And there is a lot of talk about transgenerational/intergenerational/generational trauma with respect to both Palestinians and Israelis.(*)
Note that I am not implying that andre's contributions to the article talk page are in any way problematic. I just wonder whether the article could turn out to be a landmine.

it's not mentioned in the page, if it is, andrevan will not be able to edit it or he'll get instantly banned 4 eva
might as well ban him 4 eva now since it's gonna happen sooner or later (in b4 zaphod)

[orangepi]

The point is that emotional editors shouldn't edit these topics1
Nableezy cares too much and he can't help but pushing POV
ban me, too!
did i appeal?
I'm a NY Ashki Jew!
ban me1 I care to omuch!

You did that same thing with the Trump ban. I would gladly impose a Trump TBAN on myself if the same could be applied to Winkelvi, MONGO, Atsme, etc. I never edited any Trump-related pages before last week and I'd just as soon not edit about him. Its like you think youre playing four dimensional chess and everybody else is too stupid to see it, but things like this is what a "battleground mentality" actually is. "If I can take out some other user then I will sacrifice myself." And I defy somebody to give an example of my "POV pushing" that is not me following the weight of the reliable sources.

yeah nableezy, after that, I apologized for battleground mentality, and I fell into that too, and so did you
that's why both bans are justified

If "uninvolved admins" are reading this thread, I don't see how they could come to any conclusion other than "Andrevan maliciously baited Nableezy, so the block should be lifted".

[andre]

The point is that emotional editors shouldn't edit these topics1
Nableezy cares too much and he can't help but pushing POV
ban me, too!
did i appeal?
I'm a NY Ashki Jew!
ban me1 I care to omuch!

You did that same thing with the Trump ban. I would gladly impose a Trump TBAN on myself if the same could be applied to Winkelvi, MONGO, Atsme, etc. I never edited any Trump-related pages before last week and I'd just as soon not edit about him. Its like you think youre playing four dimensional chess and everybody else is too stupid to see it, but things like this is what a "battleground mentality" actually is. "If I can take out some other user then I will sacrifice myself." And I defy somebody to give an example of my "POV pushing" that is not me following the weight of the reliable sources.

yeah nableezy, after that, I apologized for battleground mentality, and I fell into that too, and so did you
that's why both bans are justified

If "uninvolved admins" are reading this thread, I don't see how they could come to any conclusion other than "Andrevan maliciously baited Nableezy, so the block should be lifted".

LOL, I didn't bait nableezy, I haven't even been editing with him lately, he reported ME to AE

[owl be it]

Stupid threads (T-H-L)

Stupid threads is a threads that is stupid.

That's the whole article... and yet it's a GA?

[Elinruby]

The Australian user Irtapil agrees with Elinruby
Do ya think maybe they could be sock puppets?? 'cause they agree?

What?

[Midsize Jake]

it's not mentioned in the page, if it is, andrevan will not be able to edit it or he'll get instantly banned 4 eva
might as well ban him 4 eva now since it's gonna happen sooner or later (in b4 zaphod)

Well, if you don't get control of yourself pretty soon, I would think a little "48-hour break" from Wikipediocracy may be necessary in the not-too-distant future.