User talk:Al-Andalusi/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Islamophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Note
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Al-Andalusi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Nyttend's quick ban, triggered solely by a single post from a user on the Administrators' noticeboard, and his encouragement to the mentioned editor to "report about this user's other actions, since perhaps they'll warrant additional sanctions" demonstrates a lack of objectivity and judgement in his capacity as an administrator. The fact that one would regard the usage of "blanket reverting" not only as a serious personal insult, but also one that is worthy of a week ban makes his decision even more questionable in my view. Perhaps it is prejudice? Al-Andalusi (talk) 11:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please, listen to some advice. Back off, withdraw your unblock request, consider carefully whether you might possibly be at fault William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nyttend claims a "policy" was "violated". Having a neutral heading is a guideline and not a policy (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable for reasons worthy of a ban). Also, his insistence to regard "blanket reverting" as a personal insult is another questionable claim. Thanks for the advice, but I will keep my request. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The personal attack isn't about "blanket reverting". It's most likely the first sentence of your second paragraph in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: I appreciate your suggestion, but it is unlikely since the complaint by Xenophrenic made it clear that it was strictly concerned with the header only, and I have not restored that part in any of the subsequent edits. Besides, "like right-wing activists" is hardly an insult (although it is possible that user Nyttend, given his stated location, could have take in it as a personal insult). Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Evergreen, but I'll throw my hat in on this one as I have on ANI. Both users were wrong, but to their credit, Andalusi was the first to actually go to talk and attempt a conversation. Perhaps more importantly, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen a user on ANI told to go grow thicker skin when someone called them the mildest of insults and they went crying uncivil, I could make it rain. TimothyJosephWood 22:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije:. Except that I do not understand the reason for my block. In what way is naming the talk page section I started "Xenophrenic's blanket reverting" has become a violation of WP policies? and do you think that it is fair to have my account blocked for a week because of it? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- You should discuss that with Nyttend. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: As stated in my unblock request, I do not find Nyttend to be impartial nor do I find his judgement skills to be sound in this case (please take a look at the ANI post linked above and see how contradictory his replies are, and how angry and defensive he became toward other editors). I think it would make sense that another admin look into my block. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do not intend to read that whole discussion, but it seams to me that the reason for blocking is clear. You started a talk page discussion under inappropriate heading, and then kept reverting it, thus engaging in edit-war. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: As stated in my unblock request, I do not find Nyttend to be impartial nor do I find his judgement skills to be sound in this case (please take a look at the ANI post linked above and see how contradictory his replies are, and how angry and defensive he became toward other editors). I think it would make sense that another admin look into my block. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- You should discuss that with Nyttend. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: A heading using an editor's name is hardly "inappropriate". That's how I saw it at the time, and hence the insistence on restoring it. It seems that Nyttend was quickly led to believe that it is "offensive" because an editor told him so. He quickly applies the block and declares that the block was issued "since this user has a history of edit warring". So basically, a decision was given (within minutes of the report), without any sort of investigation of the situation beyond my block history. The fact that that the original poster on ANI was also involved edit-warring on the same page and also has "history of edit warring" did not bother Nyttend (from his replies, I'm confident that Nyttend had no clue because he did not check). He even tells the editor who posted on ANI to "report about this user's other actions, since perhaps they'll warrant additional sanctions". This confirms that the blocking admin has not done his job on investigating the situation, otherwise he would have known about those "other actions" and whether they warrant blocking or not. I seriously don't understand the overreaction, seems childish. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe you did not know that is was inappropriate, but once the other user changed it to more neutral wording, you knew that it was inappropriate (for him). But, you kept reverting, and that was where you showed wp:bad faith. But, you don't want to acknowledge it, and you keep saying that you were blocked for no reason. You can't expect to be unblocked with that attitude. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: FYI, the heading in reference to his edits was ("Xenophrenic's blanket reverting"). I did not think that anyone would find it inappropriate let alone "offensive" and still don't think it should. What is this a kindergarten? Peace. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Blanket reverting" is a pejorative; it's clearly not something about which both of you could agree. Starting with a problematic header isn't a big issue, but edit-warring to keep the problematic header indeed is a big problem; there's a big difference between edit-warring to enforce policy and edit-warring against it. Let me suggest that it's hard to see you undoing someone else's edits without seeing the other guy also reverting; your confidence is badly misplaced, and characterising someone as childish is thoroughly inappropriate. Perhaps you should watch as I handle other reports; I don't believe reports without checking them out, or I would just today have blocked an IP that was doing good edits, because someone came to my talk to say that the IP was a banned user's sockpuppet. If I were an outside admin reviewing an unblock request at this page, I would consider modifying your block to remove talk page access because you're using your talk page access to disparage others, rather than making reasonable unblock requests or doing other productive stuff such as {{helpme}} requests for people to fix errors you've found in articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Blanket reverting" is calling it the way it is. If you reviewd the edits on the main article and not just the talk page, you would not have overreacted to the usage of that header (I find it funny that Xenophrenic ran to ANI complaining that he is being "personally attacked" in the header by something he admits not knowing what it meant until much later). Not really interested in making another unblock request. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Blanket reverting" is a pejorative; it's clearly not something about which both of you could agree. Starting with a problematic header isn't a big issue, but edit-warring to keep the problematic header indeed is a big problem; there's a big difference between edit-warring to enforce policy and edit-warring against it. Let me suggest that it's hard to see you undoing someone else's edits without seeing the other guy also reverting; your confidence is badly misplaced, and characterising someone as childish is thoroughly inappropriate. Perhaps you should watch as I handle other reports; I don't believe reports without checking them out, or I would just today have blocked an IP that was doing good edits, because someone came to my talk to say that the IP was a banned user's sockpuppet. If I were an outside admin reviewing an unblock request at this page, I would consider modifying your block to remove talk page access because you're using your talk page access to disparage others, rather than making reasonable unblock requests or doing other productive stuff such as {{helpme}} requests for people to fix errors you've found in articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Your editing
Look, it probably is not WP:NPOV. But, can you please discuss on the talk page before you make the change? Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I know. I don't think it's OR, it's violating NPOV. I agree with you on this, it should be removed, but this isn't the way to do it. A talk page discussion about this is a better way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: "this isn't the way to do it". There is no truth to the claim that content needs to be discussed first before removal. I'm following WP:BRD. Now that you objected, we will have to hear about your thoughts. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: I was following the "D" in BRD. I do think that it should be deleted, but I would like more input on this one, as I really don't know that much about the topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: If you don't know much about the topic, then perhaps you should not have reverted? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I just think that more input is needed, because it's a sizable portion of the article that you deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, because there is ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Muhammad-related articles, and that was a reference to Muhammad. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- It was reverted by another editor, so I'll keep it the way you want. I just wanted a third opinion, I may have been a bit too hasty to discuss. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I just think that more input is needed, because it's a sizable portion of the article that you deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: If you don't know much about the topic, then perhaps you should not have reverted? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I have something important to discuss with you so can you please, enable the email system so that I can mail you? --Kajirangae (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Journal
Hi-- Do you happen to have an electronic copy of that Muslim World intro you can share? I don't seem to have access to it. Eperoton (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kitab al-Aghani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McFarland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I have something important to discuss with you so can you please, enable the email system so that I can mail you? --Kajirangae (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Journal
Hi-- Do you happen to have an electronic copy of that Muslim World intro you can share? I don't seem to have access to it. Eperoton (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kitab al-Aghani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McFarland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Pamela Geller shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
August 2016
Your addition to Motives for the September 11 attacks has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The content was removed by another user for reasons unrelated to copyright, but it was also a copyright violation, and has been revision deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA notice
As I am sure you know all pages that are part of the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area are subject to a 1RR restriction. Yu have been repeateldy vialotign that restriction by edit warrign on artilces liek 1948 Palestinian exodus and Israeli disengagement from Gaza. You need to stop , or you will be blocked form editing. Epson Salts (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell the edit warring has stopped but, Al-Andalusi, it is true, you are clearly edit warring, and as an uninvolved administrator I will not hesitate to block you if you continue. Please do not let it get that far. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, I did not revert in 1948 Palestinian exodus. Besides, being an administrator, I find it strange that you had nothing to say about the blanket reverting going on and the dismissal of the concerns raised on the talk page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was looking at Israeli disengagement from Gaza, where you reverted on 12 and 14 September. There is no reference in any edit summary to talk page discussion. I'm about to warn your counterpart. If there is hanky-panky going around in other articles, and you think it is in violation of ARBPIA, by all means report it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, I was referring to 1948 Palestinian exodus, where one user blanket reverted multiple unrelated edits that I made. Plus the removal of dubious tag by another user (Epson Salts), with no follow-up in the talk page section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Muslim National Associations into Musa Hadeib. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Ibn al-Jawzi
- added a link pointing to Ibn al-Jawzi (disambigutation)
- Ibn al-Jawzi (disambiguation)
- added a link pointing to Ibn al-Jawzi (disambigutation)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abu Nasr (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kunya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Al-Andalusi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Historicity of Muhammad
Have you read the above mentioned article? Don't you think we should do something about it? I'm new to this editing stuff. I don't understand why i can't get it deleted. Even if i'd try to edit it with valid sources, the administrators would revert it. And even if this article's Subject line matches the so-called policy of Wikipedia, the content it contains is nothing but hoax! -Haxeeb1987 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Arabic surnames
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| Nice work on creating disambiguation pages for Arabic surnames. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
WP:ARBPIA
Please review the restrictions on pages related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict at Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement. One of the restrictions says "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Debresser (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
A proposal for collaboration
Hello,
I saw some of your contributions, some of your talk page archives, and some other discussions you made in articles talk pages, and I saw your willingness to improve many articles. However I believe that I can help you do that by using a platform that better tracks progress (but not only that). We can thus start compiling documents which are needed for an article (like a small bibliography), find other relevant articles that are related and for which we can make additions, set some goals and parts that need change, read those sources while taking notes (that platform provides a great way to keep progress and to set milestones, so that we can make for example 100 pages of this book and this paper due for this milestone 19 May 2017), and then start merging changes and fine-tuning things... There's more to it so I was just mentioning only the very basic stuff!
Here's a link, https://github.com/seblafrite/wp/issues (make an account there and add a comment so that I can add you there)
For what it's worth, I'm fluent in both English and Arabic.
Looking forward to cooperating with you!
Yours faithfully, --177.87.112.218 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Treaties of Muhammad has been nominated for discussion
Category:Treaties of Muhammad, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring noticeboard report
- You can respond to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:OccultZone .28Result: .29 OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lies and distortions. I'm glad no one gave a shit to your claims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
There's a complaint filed against you, see:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Al-Andalusi. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
There's a complaint filed against you, see:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Capitals00 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Al-Andalusi/'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Umar Ibn Fahd
User:Al-Andalusi/'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Umar Ibn Fahd, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Al-Andalusi/'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Umar Ibn Fahd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Al-Andalusi/'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Umar Ibn Fahd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Al-Andalusi/'Umar ibn Muhammad Ibn Fahd
User:Al-Andalusi/'Umar ibn Muhammad Ibn Fahd, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Al-Andalusi/'Umar ibn Muhammad Ibn Fahd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Al-Andalusi/'Umar ibn Muhammad Ibn Fahd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Al-Andalusi/al-Sa'alik
User:Al-Andalusi/al-Sa'alik, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Al-Andalusi/al-Sa'alik and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Al-Andalusi/al-Sa'alik during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Al-Andalusi/Al-Subki
User:Al-Andalusi/Al-Subki, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Al-Andalusi/Al-Subki and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Al-Andalusi/Al-Subki during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Al-Andalusi/Jar Allah Ibn Fahd
User:Al-Andalusi/Jar Allah Ibn Fahd, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Al-Andalusi/Jar Allah Ibn Fahd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Al-Andalusi/Jar Allah Ibn Fahd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Al-Andalusi/Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Fahd
User:Al-Andalusi/Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Fahd, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Al-Andalusi/Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Fahd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Al-Andalusi/Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Fahd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from all edits and pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of six months.
You have been sanctioned for personal attacks ([1] [2]), incivility ([3]), violating 1RR ([4] [5] [6]) and general TE at Talk:Acid throwing.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not appealing the ban. I have no trust in a process that involves an admin who can be easily gamed by other editors to hand out bans at will. In the linked arbitration request, the section titled "Statement by Al-Andalusi" is empty. What is the point of all those talk page notification formalities if the arbitrators are not willing to follow through with the process guidelines? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could appeal, with exactly that as part of the basis. It was an unusually swift decision, and an unusually long ban, without a reasonable chance for you to reply, or other editors to weigh in. There was no attempt for uninvolved administrators to find consensus. Of course you'd also need to show that GoldenRing's reasoning was not correct, or that there was another, more reasonable way to view the filing. Good luck. Jd2718 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Jd2718: appreciate your support and comments. I was not planning on appealing this ban, but I think I'll give it a try sometime. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could appeal, with exactly that as part of the basis. It was an unusually swift decision, and an unusually long ban, without a reasonable chance for you to reply, or other editors to weigh in. There was no attempt for uninvolved administrators to find consensus. Of course you'd also need to show that GoldenRing's reasoning was not correct, or that there was another, more reasonable way to view the filing. Good luck. Jd2718 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Sandstein 09:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Al-Andalusi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I reject Sandstein's claims that I violated a topic ban. He claims that my edit is in violation because Hamas "is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". However, the nature my talk page edit concerned an internal Palestinian event with regards to torturing Palestinians. To me, this is unrelated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Secondly, Sandstein claims that I contributed to a talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and that my contribution was on how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. This is patently false and I ask that the reviewer of this unblock appeal to review my edit here. It comes under a section titled "More than 18 attacks" (which I created btw long before the topic ban), which concerns acid attacks carried out by Mujama al-Islamiya in Gaza in the 1980s, a local issue as far as I'm concerned. The talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" that Capitals00 (originator of the enforcement request) and Sandstein claimed that I contributed to is somewhere else on the talk page Talk:Acid throwing#2014 Acid Attack in West Bank, where you won't find my alleged edit. It is a shame that Sandstein would take Capitals00's words at face value and not bother with verifying the claims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Four admin have reviewed and agree with Sandstein's interpretation and actions, with none disagreeing. Your appeal is denied. Once you have received a topic ban, you need to keep a wide berth between you and ANYTHING that might be covered under than topic ban. This would including talking about the topic on talk pages, even your own talk page. His block of one week is actually less than many admin would have given (and one admin noted this in the discussion). I recommend you avoid all Palestinian and Israeli topics, even if you aren't sure if they breach the topic ban. As a last resort, you can always ask an admin about editing an article before you do, to ensure it would not be against the topic ban. For instance, if you asked me and I said that $x article should be fine as long as you don't talk about Arab/Israeli issues (BROADLY CONTRUED), and if someone drags you to AE, it is unlikely you would be sanctioned as the mistake would have been mine. If in doubt, don't without asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I have copied your appeal text to AE. Please let me know if there is anything further about it you would like changed or added. GoldenRing (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown:, like I said I was not aware that the topic ban included a ban on editing anything Palestinian-related. I would suppose that the ban extends to articles on medieval Palestine as well? All these years here and this is the first time that I encounter a topic ban. So I'm not familiar with the nuances of the concept. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe not. This is why I said to ask first. Anything before 1947 has a better chance of being ok, as long as there is no way it would be interpreted as comparing or contrasting to Israel or Jews. The goal isn't to stop you from editing, it is to keep you miles away from anything relating to the modern conflict for 6 months. Any of the admin in that discussion, or any admin that is familiar with the topics (best bet) can just be asked on their talk page. Most don't mind helping out this way. It isn't my specialty, but it is for many admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown:, and the admins couldn't share this advice without a ban? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- You just ask "I'm under a topic ban of Arab/Isreali conflict, would your opinion be that I can edit Neo-Babylonian Empire?" To which I would answer, yes, but stay away from anything mentioning Israel or any type of conflict with Jews or Israel. I would probably put a note on the talk page. If anyone asked, you could say "I asked Dennis Brown first, he said it should be ok. Now, if I'm wrong, it's my problem. On the other hand, if you were gaming me and started editing about the conflict on that page, then yes, you would still be subject to sanctions. But you can't mention anything related to the conflict, not even here on your own talk page. Topic bans suck, I know, but as you can imagine, we have had some major disaster-like problems with some editors in that area. Enough so that we have to use a hammer when policing it. You got caught under the hammer. In 6 months, it will expire. Learn from the experience and you can avoid staying under sanction. We MUST be neutral on all things here, even if we don't like it. This is particularly true in highly contested areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: I'm afraid you're dodging the question, and it doesn't look good. In any case, the circumstances behind imposing a lengthy 6 month ban when the originator of the request themselves broke 1RR on the page, and a check on WP:DSLOG for other offenses tell a very different story from this narrative of "neutrality" that you boast about. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- First, I'm trying to help you by giving you an actual, workable solution to prevent problems and answering your questions with exact examples, so telling me I'm dodging questions is a bit offensive. I'm under no obligation to even engage in discussion at all. I choose to because I'm trying to help you stay out of trouble. As far as breaking 1RR, there are exceptions when one may break 1RR, but that isn't at issue. All I reviewed was Sandstein's actions, I didn't go back and examine the total circumstances of the original sanction because you weren't appealing that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: I'm afraid you're dodging the question, and it doesn't look good. In any case, the circumstances behind imposing a lengthy 6 month ban when the originator of the request themselves broke 1RR on the page, and a check on WP:DSLOG for other offenses tell a very different story from this narrative of "neutrality" that you boast about. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- You just ask "I'm under a topic ban of Arab/Isreali conflict, would your opinion be that I can edit Neo-Babylonian Empire?" To which I would answer, yes, but stay away from anything mentioning Israel or any type of conflict with Jews or Israel. I would probably put a note on the talk page. If anyone asked, you could say "I asked Dennis Brown first, he said it should be ok. Now, if I'm wrong, it's my problem. On the other hand, if you were gaming me and started editing about the conflict on that page, then yes, you would still be subject to sanctions. But you can't mention anything related to the conflict, not even here on your own talk page. Topic bans suck, I know, but as you can imagine, we have had some major disaster-like problems with some editors in that area. Enough so that we have to use a hammer when policing it. You got caught under the hammer. In 6 months, it will expire. Learn from the experience and you can avoid staying under sanction. We MUST be neutral on all things here, even if we don't like it. This is particularly true in highly contested areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown:, and the admins couldn't share this advice without a ban? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe not. This is why I said to ask first. Anything before 1947 has a better chance of being ok, as long as there is no way it would be interpreted as comparing or contrasting to Israel or Jews. The goal isn't to stop you from editing, it is to keep you miles away from anything relating to the modern conflict for 6 months. Any of the admin in that discussion, or any admin that is familiar with the topics (best bet) can just be asked on their talk page. Most don't mind helping out this way. It isn't my specialty, but it is for many admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown:, like I said I was not aware that the topic ban included a ban on editing anything Palestinian-related. I would suppose that the ban extends to articles on medieval Palestine as well? All these years here and this is the first time that I encounter a topic ban. So I'm not familiar with the nuances of the concept. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Some unsolicited comments:
- Since you chose not to appeal the topic ban, it remains in effect; and trying to re-litigate it is pointless. I can tell you that your chance of a successful appeal of your topic ban is rather slim.
- Topic bans are meant to keep people far away from an area where there was supposedly a disruption. This is why there is a "broadly-construed" phrase there. You were just topic-banned due to the edits on a page; returning to the page the very next day was not a smart move.
- As long as you keep away from anything close to Israel, you'll be fine. Gaza was occupied by Israel in the 1980s (it technically still is, but let's leave that aside). In addition, some of the sources were Israeli newspapers. So your argument that your edits had nothing to do with Israel was not going to fly. In general, testing the boundaries of a topic ban is not a good idea, especially so recently after you've been topic banned.
- There's no "due process" or "justice" on Wikipedia, especially in areas with discretionary sanctions. You either behave like a saint, or edit somewhere else. Wikipedia is big enough that there are many pages to edit.
Hope this helps. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian:, thanks. I will keep this in mind. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawal of MfDs
I realized you were under a short term block (very unusual for the content I'm checking). You don't need to worry about these pages right now as I've withdrawn the MfDs. If they are no longer needed, feel free to request deletion yourself later. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: Thanks. But what is the reason for deletion? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Short abandoned userspace stubs that have not been edited for a long time. Just housekeeping. They came up in a maintenance category. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)