User talk:BilalSaleh

November 2012

Hello, I'm Hello71. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ⁓ Hello 71 13:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, BilalSaleh, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BusterD (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Palestinian-Israeli arbitration notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please revert your changes Ankh.Morpork 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaged in any edit warring. None of edits today violate the 1RR principle.BilalSaleh (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reverted Mor2's edit immediately preceding it, despite your edit summary claim to the contrary. Ankh.Morpork 19:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

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).

BilalSaleh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's not clear to me how anything that I did violated the 1RR. The only edits that I reverted today was a series of reversions by A.Monk or whatever. Do they count as more than one? If so, why don't his? BilalSaleh (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, a sequential string of reverts only counts as one, as long as there are no other editors making changes in between. However, the edit at 19:10 does appear to partially revert the previous edit by reinserting material that was removed. I will also note that this block is very specifically an arbitration enforcement block, which cannot be independently reviewed by administrators. You will need to read the block notice carefully and utilize the review process outlined there.Kuru (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock|The edit that A.M. judges as a 2nd reversion, inserted the information Mor2 had removed, but it removed nothing of what Mor2's own reversion re-added. Thus I don't see my edit as a revert at all. In case it is, I was not aware of that; I ask to be pardoned by the administration. I also agree to self-revert in case the ban is lifted. BilalSaleh (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

You need to read the policy more carefully as to what constitutes a revert. I'll give you a hint. It's not just clicking on undo. If you can convince me that you understand the policy and that you will not violate the policy again, I will consider unblocking you. But at this point, everything you say is expressed in the defensive ("don't see my edit as a revert") and the conditional ("in case it is"). Please come back after you've read the policy and explain to me what it says.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, at the time that I made that edit I didn't see it as reversion for the aforementioned reason: that it didn't eliminate content previously inserted. Considering that it is, which I conclude from yours and Kuru's answers, I'll agree to self-revert in case I have the opportunity, that is, if the ban is lifted. If I am unblocked only at the end of the 24h period, there will be no reason for me to self-revert as I'll already have been penalized for the violation. BilalSaleh (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not grasping my point. I don't want you to concede that it was a revert based on my and Kuru's say-so. I want you to evince an understanding of the policy. Until you do that, the block remains in place. And it is not a penalty; it is preventive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thank you if you quit interpreting every one of my posts as a challenge to you. When I said that I saw the revert as not a violation of 1RR, and not a revert at all, I was not being defensive. I genuinely didn't see it as such, that's all. And when I said that I conclude that it nontheless was, it was not because of anyone's "say-so"; it's because I genuinely see your answers as instructive for the purpose of understanding 1RR. As I said before, I didn't know 1RR encompassed edits such as the last one I made on Operation Pillar of Cloud. I do now. If this is not enough argument for a unblock, then I rest my case. BilalSaleh (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Perry Mason (smile), just explain to me why you now agree that your edit was a violation of 1RR. Include in your explanation citations to the policy itself. I'm not trying to be overly demanding here. If I were, I wouldn't be having this extended conversation with you. I want more reassurance that you really understand the policy. In that way, I'll be more comfortable that this won't happen again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which part of Wikipedia's editing policies covers for the edit I'm being punished for. That I agree that the edit was a violation of 1RR, is because, as I said in the previous message, two different administrators have made the same case, and I have no reason to suspect that the ban is arbitrary or not grounded on Wikipedia policy. BilalSaleh (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this is all I have to say, but most of what I've learned from Wikipedia's policies, I did, not from reading the guidelines, but from observing of the articles' history. BilalSaleh (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read all of WP:EW, paying close attention to the sections WP:1RR and WP:3RR. If you violate policy, it behooves you to read the policy and understand it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I restate the comment made by Kuru; this is an arbitration enforcement block which cannot be overturned merely by decision of an uninvolved editor. Please re-read the unblock decline above on this page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Si. I've deactivated the unblock request. Your options are outlined at WP:AEBLOCK. Continue your discussion here with the blocking administrator, or create a request in line with the linked guidelines, but you cannot get an individual administrator to act against this block. Kuru (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]