Aslbsl

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sinan Reis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sinan Reis

Hello! Your submission of Sinan Reis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sinan Reis

The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Garden of the King, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greenspace and Kingdom of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Expert-subject

FYI, see these threads. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Palestinian Civil Police Force

Hello! Your submission of Palestinian Civil Police Force at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lihaas (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

could you respond to the comments made on March 11th? I would like to proceed with the review of this article, but the issues need to be addressed.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian Civil Police Force

hi, I put a request on the DYK talk page for Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian Civil Police Force to be restored to the nomination page. --Ishtar456 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR

You have, once again, violated the 1RR at Gilo. I will be reporting that violation if you do not self-revert. You are not entitled to force your changes in to articles without consensus, and such behavior can lead to blocks or bans. Please self-revert and seek consensus for your edits. nableezy - 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As you have refused to self-revert, I have brought the issue to the arbitration enforcement board. You can see this here. nableezy - 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made no 1rr violation - Nableezy was misrepresenting the diffs. There was no initial revert, as he claims; I did not undo his edit (I did not remove EJ as he says, rather I moved it one sentence and it is still there even now!). Only one revert (The other edits he includes from weeks ago, not the subject of this report, are also misrepresented as far as date and content). Furthermore, it doesn't seem correct that I wasn't given a chance to present my case on the report page for an event that allegedly took place 2-3 days ago. What was the rush? Not everyone is on Wikipedia all day long... Aslbsl (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Have you read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks, as instructed in the block notice? If you have then you will know that you have not followed the instructions there, and that this unblock request cannot possibly be accepted, as no administrator has the authority to do so. (However, to help you, I will also point out that what you say is inaccurate. The edits you made did revert editing of another editor: they removed a reference. Did you not notice that you had done that?) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2012 (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.

Hi James and thank you for your reply. The reference is actually still there. It was just added twice by the other editor. I've now read what you pointed me too, but I don't quite understand the process. I would greatly appreciate any assistance. Aslbsl (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would greatly appreciate assistance with the arbitration enforcement action appeal

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. I'd be happy to post your appeal to WP:AE, but this is only a 24 hour block, which will expire long before any action is taken as the result of the appeal process, which can last a week or more. In the event you're blocked for more than a week, an appeal on WP:AE might make sense. For this block, the best action is simply to wait it out. Take a break, come back tomorrow. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2012 (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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by aslbsl

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

aslbsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Aslbsl

Administrator imposing the sanction

The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by aslbsl

I was blocked for an alleged 1rr violation on Gilo. The diffs presented are misleadingly labeled by the reporting editor, Nableezy.

Nableezy claimed that this was an initial revert because I supposedly removed East Jerusalem. In fact I did not revert to the previous version, and did not remove EJ. It is still there - I kept it in and moved it one sentence over (and it is still there even now). The only revert was after Nableezy removed other, uncontroversial and sourced information. In my revert, I also did not remove EJ.

(The other edits he includes from weeks ago, not the subject of this report, are also misrepresented as far as date and content).

Furthermore, it doesn't seem correct that I wasn't given a chance to present my case on the report page for an event that allegedly took place 2-3 days before. What was the rush? Not everyone is on Wikipedia all day long... Aslbsl (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Documentation[create] [purge]

Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this page.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)