User talk:Al-Andalusi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:29, 10 June 2017 editDennis Brown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →June 2017: add← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:45, 10 June 2017 edit undoDennis Brown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →June 2017: fxNext edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:

	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. 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 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 . 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		{{unblock reviewed\|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. 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 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 . 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 ], 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. ] (]) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)\|decline=~~Several~~ admin have reviewed and agree with {{u\|Sandstein}}'s interpretation and actions, with ~~no one~~ 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. ] - ] 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}}		"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 ], 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. ] (]) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)\|decline=Four admin have reviewed and agree with {{u\|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. ] - ] 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}}

	: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. ] (]) 22:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)		: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. ] (]) 22:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:45, 10 June 2017

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

WP:ARE

There's a complaint filed against you, see:Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Al-Andalusi. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 8 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 ( ), incivility (), violating 1RR ( ) 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages: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)

WP:ARE

There's a complaint filed against you, see:Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Capitals00 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your A-I conflict topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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 ] or ]. 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" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)

Revision as of 19:29, 10 June 2017 editDennis Brown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →June 2017: add← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:45, 10 June 2017 edit undoDennis Brown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →June 2017: fxNext edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:

	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. 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 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 . 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		{{unblock reviewed\|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. 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 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 . 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 ], 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. ] (]) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)\|decline=~~Several~~ admin have reviewed and agree with {{u\|Sandstein}}'s interpretation and actions, with ~~no one~~ 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. ] - ] 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}}		"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 ], 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. ] (]) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)\|decline=Four admin have reviewed and agree with {{u\|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. ] - ] 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}}

	: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. ] (]) 22:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)		: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. ] (]) 22:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)