User talk:Al-Andalusi

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)

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 [[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."

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)

@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)

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)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Women in Islam into Sexual Violation in Islamic Law. 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) 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: my edit summaries already note the fact that the content has been copied/moved. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not true on the edits the bot picked up, which were this one and this one. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hijra has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hijra, 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) 07:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Al-Andalusi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR vio

Note you violated 1RR with this. I urge you to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)