User talk:Ashtul/Archive 1

Welcome

Hi, Ashtul. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. If you see something on Wikipedia that you want to change, just press the edit button and change it!

For the basic principles, see the five pillars of Wikipedia. And if you're ready to make some edits, this Wikipedia cheatsheet may come in handy.

Cheers, ChzzBot IV (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Middle East Monitor (MEMO) (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rankersbo was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rankersbo (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Ashtul, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rankersbo (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

You should note that this ruling prohibits more than one revert on any article within a 24-hour period. You have already breached this several times on Skunk (weapon), and any repeat is likely to lead to sanctions being placed on your account. RolandR (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Per Wikipedia's policy you should not be reverting. Note this revert of that article will be my final one today. I encourage you to read Wikipedia's Policy on Neutral Point of View Melody Concerto^talk 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Shuja'iyya, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Battle of Shuja'iyya, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note

That the Skunk articles deals with the I/P conflict and comes under sanctions according to the protocols outlined at the top of the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Zero^talk 05:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You have just violated the 1RR rule at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Your edit was reverted by someone else already, but I advise you that such violations can lead to sanctions including blocks and bans. Zero^talk 05:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My edit was reverted due to NPOV and lies. One person claimed it was copy/paste while the other decided it wasn't relevant which it is. Ashtul (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to break 1RR whether you think it is justified or not. Incidentally, neither of the sources you gave say that the digging was done at the al-Aqsa mosque, so the relevance to the article is not established. Zero^talk 05:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Skunk (weapon)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Skunk (weapon), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please respond

You are under a formal obligation to revert your edit after being notified that you violated 1R. Please do so, or explain your action, or you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A full explanation was given at Talk:Skunk_(weapon). Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Thank. --Ashtul (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:1RR violation

Hello Ashtul. You seem to have broke WP:1RR at Skunk (weapon) (your reverts at 16:09 on 27 December and 09:03 on 28 December). You've responded already on my talk page, but, unless your reverts are covered by WP:3RRNO they are still counted toward the violation. I.e. unless your were reverting vandalism or biographical defamation your reverts are still reverts. Arguments that you are right and the other party is wrong are not usually considered. Please offer to self-revert to avoid a block. Thank you, (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thanks for taking the time. I believe this revert should be permitted under WP:3RRNO rule #7. If you don't agree I will revert and change it again after the 24 hours but I believe I have provided enough information to justify it. User:Nishidani have failed to provide a reason for reverting my previous change which was fully sourced. Regards Ashtul (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe you were reverting libel, who do you think was being libelled? EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not libel but rather poorly sourced (outdated) which I have explained and open a discussion about. Nishidani claimed something didn't happen, which might have been right at the time the source was written, but I brought a source that the info is not true anymore. If he wants to word it differently, he is welcome but reverting incorrect information claiming it is POV is stupid (forgive my French). He doesn't dispute the info anymore so I would say we both agree the source is poor. Ashtul (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion that it was poorly sourced does not create an exception to 1RR. Please go ahead with the self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. I cannot do it since there were two versions since. I can revert only last edit. Am I missing something? How do I do it?

Thank you, Ashtul. I will explain technically the error you are making just to make it clear how wikipedia works when sources appear to be contradictory.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ashtul. You do not appear to understand the point.

The two sources state that fromk 2008-2013/2014, skunk appears to have been used exclusively against Palestinians

B'tselem Sarit Michaeli, 'Crowd Control: Israel’s Use of Crowd Control Weapons in the West Bank,' B'tselem May 2013 p.36

B’Tselem’s observations show that security forces often spray the Skunk at protest marches and demonstrations as a preliminary method of dispersal, even when the demonstrations are quiet and no stones have been thrown. B’Tselem does not know of any cases in which security forces used the Skunk at a demonstration with only Jewish or Israeli participants. Many Palestinian demonstrators have expressed indignation at the humiliation caused by exposure to the Skunk.p.36

John Reed 'Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem,' Financial Times 21 November 2014

They say that skunk water, which smells unbearably bad when fresh but is physically harmless, allows them to disperse crowds effectively and identify suspects later. "The skunk water cannons are used as a non-lethal weapon when Palestinians are involved in rioting, throwing petrol bombs and stones against police officers", says Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman. However, Palestinians in eastern neighbourhoods say police spray the greyish liquid indiscriminately into shops, restaurants and hotels, in a stream powerful enough to break windows, and describe it as one of many heavy-handed tactics Israeli authorities do not deploy in the city's Jewish west, underscoring their inferior status.

You found a source which suggests (the video does not) that skunk was once used against a Haredi group in early October 2014.

Yitzak Weiss, 'Discharging skunk at Haredi protesters in Jerusalem,' News 0404 (Hebrew) 9 October 2014

Rather than, as I suggested, add this information (it may not be RS by the way, but I suggest it may be used) to the page, you removed what both B'tselem and Reed stated. Whatever the truth of this obscure report, it remains a fact that (a) B'tselem had never heard of skunk being used against Israelis from 2008-2013 (May) (b) that the police spokesman cited by Reed in November 2014 said that it is used when Palestinians are involved (d) Palestinians are not aware of it being used in the Western half of Jerusalem.

Therefore, both the Israeli report of one apparent instance of it being used in West Jerusalem, and the other reports, suitably modulated, must be used. You cannot personally judge by one obscure report of one instance that a remark certainly valid for 6 years, since you can find no instance contradicting it from August 2008 to October 2014, must be removed as untruthful now, and therefore struck from Wikipedia as a libel (WP:OR, WP:V) etc. So revert, and allow the full details to be reentered in a way that all the reported opinions and facts are properly representedNishidani (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, I reverted the info. In it's current wording it is 100% incorrect. It is not up to an 'opinion'. You write something didn't happen when it did. If you want to do some word juggling - go ahead. Otherwise, in 24 hours we are back to bracket 1 and then you won't have technicalities on your side. Happy new year. Ashtul (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above (which I am transferring to the talk page, slowly and carefully. You can call in any number of editors with a reputation as experienced and unbiased wikipedians, to modulate all of those sources so that they do not conflict, or I will do it myself. It is quite simple. It is not a matter of truth, it is a matter of correctly reporting what relevant sources say. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Middle East Monitor (MEMO) (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ktr101 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Please stop following me around. Your edit and the edit summary was egregiously stupid because the wording I provided was in the source I introduced, which you clearly did not check. Don't attribute to me 'bias' unless you can show I distort the sources I use.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That was a small revert for a NPOV and biased change you have made earlier. Nobody hounding you to annoy you but rather look that you don't insert your biased propaganda wherever you can.Ashtul (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ashtul. Welcome to Wikipedia and all that. It is good to see you editing so I wanted to throw out some advice:

• Nishidani is very biased and I'm sure he admits it. Don't call him a liar or a propagandist, though. I did that a few years ago as a brand new editor (call a spade a spade I thought, right?) and got a swift kick in the ass for it. He was topic banned or awhile and was brought back in some weird Mickey Mouse "settlement". Should have never happened but it did.
• Don't worry about the paragraph above or another drama since you should be worried about contributing to an encyclopedia. The project is here to do an awesome thing. Kids aren't reading Britannica and Google is pushing Wikipedia articles on a simple search. That being said, Wikipedia is losing relevance every second. The aforementioned search engine's algorithms and editors not giving a shit anymore due weird internal politics (drama) on pages that no one is going to look at anyways.
• Don't edit war. Chill out when needed. Have fun (party all day, party all night)Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul, your irrelevant comments, your highly biased edits, and your obsessive HOUNDING of User: Nishidani are tiresome and annoying. I advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, or you could be topic-banned or blocked. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eli. 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) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning

You are turning up consistently on pages where you have never edited, and I am a long term editor, to edit war. See WP:Hound. You are using sourcing that consistently violates WP:RS, as noted on talk pages and at the RSN; (c) your English is frequently bad (d) you do not read the whole page but add information that requires editors to revert it because the subject is already covered. etc.etc.etc.etc.

This incompetence and chasing after an editor to challenge him, esp. on articles dealing with settlers when you have a WP:COI, since some of your family are settled in the West Bank, looks like harassment. Basically it is sheer incompetence that if persisted in looks like a war of nerves attrition game. Please calm down, study how to edit Wikipedia productively, and take a break. The pattern, if indexed by diffs, looks damaging to your aspiration to edit here. I am patient, but I can't spend all day looking at the damage you make to articles through WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and if you persist in following me, introducing poor sources, and trying to force me to editwar I will have no option but to ask that administrators review the record and apply sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, please stop these ridiculous warnings. You took out 0404 links with no other editor agreeing with you at the time.

As for WP:Hound, I told you, I will keep on checking your edits. I do not change, add or delete anything for the sake of annoying you, but edits like these are clear evidence that if anyone is to blame of WP:COI, it is you rather then me. Why write about the poor Palestinians in the next village in an article about a settlement? Don't make me laugh about WP:COI. Ashtul (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See A/E

I'm sorry it has come to this but I am now reporting you for your 1R violation here . Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the warning. No hard feelings :) Ashtul (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

May I ask if you have edited Wikipedia before, and if so, under what names? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You may and the answer is no.Ashtul (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction as documented in the related AE request, 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  09:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "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."

Appeal

{{unblock}}

Insofar as the appeal is directed to me, I decline it. Per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, ""When in doubt, assume it is related" and "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense". This pretty clearly leaves no leeway for error or warnings. I believe that a one-week block is of the appropriate length to serve as an incentive for you to exercise proper caution in the future.  Sandstein  11:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've copied the appeal to WP:AE, and commented there. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your appeal was declined. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

2nd Appeal

{{unblock}}

Your AE request

Please do not again attempt to use arbitration enforcement to attempt to win content disputes, or you may be sanctioned for abusing the process. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein, Did you read the last part of his statements?

I removed some WP:OR suggesting some harmony between Kiryat Netafim's Jews-only settlement and the villagers of Qarawat Bani Hassan. After all Kiryat Netafim 's sewage is all pumped on Qarawat Bani Hassan, and the village challenges its landuse.

Well, neither Human Rights nor any other neutral international organization think that a blockade broad restrictions that denied the import of light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner, soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies, fishing ropes and rods, ginger and chocolate etc.etc. did so just to limit Palestinian rocket attacks. When this is the case, the Human Rights Watch (critical of both Israel and Palestine)'s phrasing ‘sought to justify’ governing ‘broad restrictions’ is adequate to the reality. No one can seriously maintain with a straight face that denying potato chips or tampons to the enemy will stop rocket attacks.

Do you can this anything but strong opinion and POVPUSH? Ashtul (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

In accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorised under WP:ARBPIA2, you are hereby topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The proximate cause for the topic ban is your frivolous AE request against Nishidani in retaliation for a previous AE request he filed against you, but a review of your edits suggests to me that your conduct is likely to cause further problems in an already toxic topic area which needs coll heads, not edit-warring and tit-for-tat AE requests. This restriction is of an indefinite duration, but you may request reconsideration of this topic ban after no less than three months of unproblematic editing elsewhere. You may also appeal to the administrators' noticeboard or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and failing that to the Arbitration Committee via the procedure described here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, Did you read the last part of his statements?

I removed some WP:OR suggesting some harmony between Kiryat Netafim's Jews-only settlement and the villagers of Qarawat Bani Hassan. After all Kiryat Netafim 's sewage is all pumped on Qarawat Bani Hassan, and the village challenges its landuse.

Well, neither Human Rights nor any other neutral international organization think that a blockade broad restrictions that denied the import of light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner, soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies, fishing ropes and rods, ginger and chocolate etc.etc. did so just to limit Palestinian rocket attacks. When this is the case, the Human Rights Watch (critical of both Israel and Palestine)'s phrasing ‘sought to justify’ governing ‘broad restrictions’ is adequate to the reality. No one can seriously maintain with a straight face that denying potato chips or tampons to the enemy will stop rocket attacks.

Do you can this anything but strong opinion and POVPUSH? Ashtul (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)