ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussions to User talk:Al-Andalusi/Archive 3. (BOT) |
|||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Use the extra time to discuss on the article talk page (this is the point of the remedy). [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 23:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
Use the extra time to discuss on the article talk page (this is the point of the remedy). [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 23:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|||
|imagesize=50px |
|||
|1=The following sanction now applies to you: |
|||
{{Talkquote|1=In addition to the standard [[WP:ARBPIA]] restrictions, you are restricted to one edit or one series of '''consecutive''' edits per 24 hours on an article for six months.}} |
|||
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=828799952#Al-Andalusi this arbitration enforcement request]. |
|||
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2018|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|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.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
Revision as of 21:01, 4 March 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
1RR vio
Note you violated 1RR with this. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: My last change on the page was on Dec 10. Can you explain why is it 1RR? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding of 1RR is that it applies on a per-article basis. Correct me if I'm wrong. Al-Andalusi (talk)
1RR vio
Note - original authorship and revert - is a violation of the original author provision in ARBPIA's 1RR (and this paragraph is clearly ARBPIA). BLPCRIME is not a valid exemption to 1RR here as per BLPCRIME: This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.
- and Bishara is clearly a public figure and well known.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Azmi is a "relatively unknown" person. You'd have to look for him to find him, as opposed to say Mandela. In any case, your revert gives undue weight to what amounts to mere speculations and accusations. Somehow, with all the serious accusations on his head, Azmi managed to slip out of the country after he promised the authorities that he'd come back for interview! So this is a show put on by the Zionist regime and they're milking it to pass discriminating bills against Palestinian citizens...it does NOT belong to the lede. Azmi is known for a lot more things that what happens or is said in that shithole Knesset. A user recently made additions to wiki page to illustrate that.
- Looking at the history, it seems you violated 1RR on that same page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- He was a member of Knesset and party leader - definition of a public figure.
- How did I violate 1RR? I performed exactly 1 revert (in 2 consecutive edits, with no intervening edits by other users, which counts as 1 per WP:3RR
A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
). Earlier I added tags, which is not a revert. If you tell me what I should self-revert, I will. - I respectfully request you self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- You made 2 sequential reverts to the page, but the reverts undid different content added by 2 different users and thus are completely independent from one another. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's a single revert - per the relevant policy (WP:3RR) I quoted above.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that 1RR supersedes 3RR policy. Show me an example of your behavior being allowed in am Israeli-Arab conflict page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:1RR:
The one-revert rule is described like the three-revert rule above, except with the words "more than one revert" replacing "more than three reverts"
- so the cited clause from 3RR is not superseded, the sole difference is three being replaced with one.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:1RR:
- It appears that 1RR supersedes 3RR policy. Show me an example of your behavior being allowed in am Israeli-Arab conflict page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's a single revert - per the relevant policy (WP:3RR) I quoted above.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- You made 2 sequential reverts to the page, but the reverts undid different content added by 2 different users and thus are completely independent from one another. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1RR vio
this revert on Irgun is a violation of the original author clause in ARBPIA 1RR. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Azmi Bishara's article
Dear Al-Andalusi, hope this finds u well. Can u plz help me in reviewing my edits for Azmi Bishara article? I have done the edits at my sandbox as per Number 57 advice. If my edits are OK, plz move it to the article if u accept helping me in that. Thanks in advance.--Zeidan87 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
1RR
You violated 1RR with [2] and [3] - besides removing well sourced material (which is beyond guilt by association - these organizations are in the same building and some of the senior staff has positions in both). Kindly self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, I did not. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Al-Andalusi, this does appear to be a 1RR violation on an article covered by WP:ARBPIA. You are still under notice for ARBPIA. It is in your interest to undo your last change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, I'm seeing 2 reverts on different articles. How is that 1RR? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify, you violated 1rr in both articles with those diffs. You also violated 1rr in another article, with this diff [4] - however I did not ask you to self revert as others had edited since.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Al-Andalusi, you removed Category:Muslim Brotherhood from Middle East Monitor twice on 25 February. The first time you were reverting an addition by User:Zakawer from 30 January, so both edits were reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, I respectfully disagree. I understand that you came here from a WP:Canvassing call, but since you made the effort to go back in time and review the edits, then I was hoping you'd see that the context of my changes (on both articles) had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, but with the Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. The organization does not profess its Brotherhood affiliation, and it would be a violation to label it among the "Muslim Brotherhood" because of a accusation from a critic. Yes I removed Category:Muslim Brotherhood twice but I will say that only the second removal counts as a proper "revert", although of a user with less than 500 edits (ARBPIA 30/500), and what you refer to as the first revert...well technically any change to an article can be classified as a revert if you look deep into the article's history with the intention to stir problems from nothing, which Icewhiz is doing here. What should be made clear here, is that Icewhiz arrived at those two pages and brought "Israel" and ARBIA into this only because he is stalking my contributions page, and found his questionable additions reverted. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Without regard to the merits (which EdJohnson has under control), I will just say that it is NOT canvassing when someone asks an admin to get involved. We volunteered and were specifically chosen by the community to do this, on behalf of the community, so framing it this way is flatly wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I had watchlisted both pages after discussing (the inappropriate in my eyes) use of MEMO as a source with you on a separate article. Both organizations cover the Israeli/Palestinian conflict intensely, and the edit of mine that was reverted was clearly ARBPIA in that it involved Hamas. Some of the previously reverted content by you also involved Hamas and not just the wider brotherhood - and some of it was recently restored by NeilN who is extended comfirmed. Also - I did not canvass anyone to here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the earlier edits mentioned by EdJohnson when I said they are not ARBPIA-related. So I believe that my revert of your additions would constitute the first ARBIA-related revert. You mention that the previously reverted content by me also involved Hamas, which is not quite right (unless you're referring to this [5], which on a normal day, would not bee seen as a "revert" but a normal edit). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Which is a clear revert of [6] - a 30 Jan 2018 edit by an extended confirmed user on ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I posted a friendly request here assuming this may have been an honest mistake, despite user:Zakawer's edit being the last major edit prior to your own edits (which incidentally added "Category:Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" apropo ARBPIA relevance of the article). I understand, however, that you see things differently.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Which is a clear revert of [6] - a 30 Jan 2018 edit by an extended confirmed user on ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the earlier edits mentioned by EdJohnson when I said they are not ARBPIA-related. So I believe that my revert of your additions would constitute the first ARBIA-related revert. You mention that the previously reverted content by me also involved Hamas, which is not quite right (unless you're referring to this [5], which on a normal day, would not bee seen as a "revert" but a normal edit). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, I respectfully disagree. I understand that you came here from a WP:Canvassing call, but since you made the effort to go back in time and review the edits, then I was hoping you'd see that the context of my changes (on both articles) had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, but with the Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. The organization does not profess its Brotherhood affiliation, and it would be a violation to label it among the "Muslim Brotherhood" because of a accusation from a critic. Yes I removed Category:Muslim Brotherhood twice but I will say that only the second removal counts as a proper "revert", although of a user with less than 500 edits (ARBPIA 30/500), and what you refer to as the first revert...well technically any change to an article can be classified as a revert if you look deep into the article's history with the intention to stir problems from nothing, which Icewhiz is doing here. What should be made clear here, is that Icewhiz arrived at those two pages and brought "Israel" and ARBIA into this only because he is stalking my contributions page, and found his questionable additions reverted. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Al-Andalusi, you removed Category:Muslim Brotherhood from Middle East Monitor twice on 25 February. The first time you were reverting an addition by User:Zakawer from 30 January, so both edits were reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify, you violated 1rr in both articles with those diffs. You also violated 1rr in another article, with this diff [4] - however I did not ask you to self revert as others had edited since.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:, I'm seeing 2 reverts on different articles. How is that 1RR? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Al-Andalusi, this does appear to be a 1RR violation on an article covered by WP:ARBPIA. You are still under notice for ARBPIA. It is in your interest to undo your last change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
AE
Please refer Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to a report filed against you in regards to the 1RR thread above.
1RR in ARBPIA
Hi. Here are some suggestions about the 1RR remedy in ARBPIA.
The simplest way to not run afoul of the remedy is to follow both these two practices:
- Only edit the page once in 24 hours (a consecutive series of edits counts as one edit).
- If you're reverting any edit, make sure that the edit is at least 24 hours old.
In addition, if someone still asks you to self-revert due to 1RR, just do it whether you think it's right or wrong (you can still discuss with them on your talkpage). This has been my practice for many years, and I have had zero problems.
Use the extra time to discuss on the article talk page (this is the point of the remedy). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, you are restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
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. NeilN talk to me 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)