Hello, ABHammad!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Saw the you edited my L.A. Burdick page. Wanted to know if you have any advice for me going forward with Wikipedia. Anabellakb (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides what has been pointed out by Onel5969, you should resort to reliable independent sources instead of shopping reviews to cite your info. Also, the first occurrence of the article's title in the lead section lacked MOS and should be in bold. But overall, I think it is a good article. ABHammad (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your revisions on the Blythe Baird article from 03:37, 30 April 2023 and following. I was wondering why you thought to remove the Awards and Honors section? I didn't see any edit summaries for your revisions so it's unclear for me why you made your edits.

Nbd1234 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stalking me across Wikipedia and indiscriminately reverting my edits. In this edit, you removed two top tier academic RS[1] and in this edit, you restored poorly sourced puffery and removed high-quality RS[2]. Thenightaway (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. For Nationalism, my intent was to restore the quote, which you deemed unhelpful. For the second article, you reverted my edits as I was working on it. ABHammad (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user ABHammad had never edited the Tale Heydarov page before I edited it. Unless you've been editing with multiple accounts?[3] Thenightaway (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're willing to imply by that. Do you have basis for any of your accusations? ABHammad (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an affiliation with Maaden (company) (this includes paid editing on the company's behalf)? Why are you adding company press releases about how environmentally friendly they are? Thenightaway (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an affiliation with Maaden (company) or any subject I write about. What makes you think sources I used are press releases? ABHammad (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used were propaganda outlets in an authoritarian state writing puff pieces about a state-owned company. Thenightaway (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The National is not a reliable source? Maaden is Saudi-state owned but the National is UAE-based? ABHammad (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your edit[4]. The content you added is sourced to UAE propaganda outlets (which includes The National) writing puff pieces about Emirates Global Aluminium, a UAE state-owned aluminium producer. Thenightaway (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the National is a UAE propaganda outlet which isn't reliable? And that makes all UAE publications unreliable because UAE is authoritarian? ABHammad (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a puff piece[5] that makes a state-owned aluminum producer seem environmentally friendly. Please use common sense. Thenightaway (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm just trying to understand your argument. So the National is still a reliable source but you think the article is a puff piece. Can you share examples from within the article that support your claim about the article being a puff piece? ABHammad (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The National is not a RS and that piece is not journalism. The piece is indistinguishable from a press release by the company. Think for yourself: what kind of news organization reports on an environmental agreement for an aluminum producer without saying anything about the environmental impact of aluminum production, undertakes no analysis of whether the old 2018 agreement actually resulted in any concrete environmental improvements, quotes no scientists or environmental activists about the proposed agreement... the most basic kind of news reporting. I don't blame the people writing that story because actual Emirati journalists who criticize the state risk harassment and arrest. But it's absurd that Wikipedia is now uncritically regurgitating that company's press release. Thenightaway (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that would render all UAE news outlets unreliable? ABHammad (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DMH223344 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff1 07:00, 19 May 2024

Diff2 03:55, 20 May 2024

I notice that this has occurred after an explicit warning about edit warring in the above section. Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should double-check your timeline, my revert happened before the warning. Nonetheless, thanks for reminding me about the 1RR rule, I'll self-revert in a moment. I strongly urge you to do the same, as your edit blatantly promotes false information. The Sabra and Shatila massacres were carried out by Lebanese Christian militias. Claiming otherwise - that Israel committed them (as opposed to stood aside, or did not oppose them, according to some critics), is simply promoting false information, and destroying Wikipedia's credibility.

I'm deeply shocked by the pervasive misinformation in ARBPIA-related articles. While I previously believed it stemmed from both sides... I see I was totally wrong. This situation, where false facts is promoted just to promote one sided propaganda, and the re-writing of history, demands immediate attention from the community. Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia is at stake due to these distortions. ABHammad (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your edit blatantly promotes false information Please discuss that on the article talk page because my edit is simply a reflection of what it says at the wikilinked article and does not say that Israel committed them but that Israel supported them. If the wikilinked article is wrong, then that is something that should be addressed at that article.

If you are aware of problems in articles, then edit to correct those. If you are aware of any editor that is intentionally doing what you say, take it up directly with them on their talk page in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is for you, O.maximov, and האופה; I don't want to post it three times so I'm just posting it once. You three are very obvious, but I'm very lazy. So cut the crap, because if I keep seeing it I'm eventually going to get motivated enough to post the diffs to AE. Save us both some time and find something more productive to do. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no idea what you mean by "obvious". I've been here for several years and I have nothing to hide, and apart from our interactions from talk page discussions these past few days, I do not know these users. If you suspect that something is wrong, it is vital that you file a complaint. ABHammad (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more POV revert (what is it, 5 times, now?, I lost count) on Palestinians and a complaint is on the cards. There is a talk page discussion, participate there. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier, You are going against consensus and the principles of collaborative editing. Taking it to my talk page instead of collaborating on the talk page instead feels like bullying and harassment. Let's work together to build consensus on this controversial topic, the edit history and talk page clearly show I'm not alone in opposing these recent changes. This isn't setting a good example. Please self-revert to the last stable version to show your willingness to cooperate and collaborate, as Wikipedia rules and the community expect us to do. ABHammad (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AE is thataway. I'll wait. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I'm still too busy IRL to put it all together, just have some links saved, but here they are:

1. Special:Diff/1225273954, Special:Diff/1225478626, Special:Diff/1225948460, Special:Diff/1225952952
2. Special:Diff/1219406859, Special:Diff/1220036690, Special:Diff/1224115091, Special:Diff/1224403278
3. Special:Diff/1226858361, Special:Diff/1226863711, Special:Diff/1226950291, Special:Diff/1227097212, Special:Diff/1227693208, Special:Diff/1228826211, Special:Diff/1228841908
4. Special:Diff/1227903867, Special:Diff/1227946820/1227954632, Special:Diff/1227969718
5. Special:Diff/1227540609, Special:Diff/1227551828, Special:Diff/1227678817, Special:Diff/1228001241, Special:Diff/1228182644/1228240393, Special:Diff/1228546471, Special:Diff/1228616893, Special:Diff/1228669104

That's just the tag-team edit warring, that's not all the edit warring, not even all the edit warring for those particular articles (editor interaction analyzer misses some), and probably not all the relevant accounts, but it's what I've found so far for whatever whoever wants to use it for. Levivich (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Wikipedia editor for nearly two years, although there was a period during which I was not active. Recently, I have been editing topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is noteworthy that these accusations against me emerged right after I started focusing on this topic. Your accusations are baseless and unproductive. If you genuinely believe there is an issue, file a formal complaint. Until then, stop with the threats. I will continue to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and work towards consensus. After the investigation proves my innocence, I expect a full apology for these unfounded accusations. ABHammad (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1230347764, Special:Diff/1230390967. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference from your own https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=next&oldid=1230347764, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=next&oldid=1230390967. I already told you, if you feel you have a case, go ahead and file a complaint. If not, it's time to stop this WP:Harassment. ABHammad (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe user has the temperance or competence to be editing in the Israeli-Palestinian contentious topic area. See [6] and their rationale and comments on the relevant talk page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't handle the fact that new additions can be reverted, I am afraid this claim can turn exactly the opposite way. As I wrote on the talk page, when handling this controversial topic we have to strive to be the best versions of ourselves, and assume good faith. ABHammad (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homilies don't help. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your edit. I have read the policy and know exactly what it says: the content that you removed was there since March and is therefore stable, while the RfC wasn't initiated until the end of May. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't stable - if it was, we would have never gone to RFC. I invite you to read the policy, which clearly states that if proposed content receives no consensus, we revert to where "it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." ABHammad (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it there since March or was it not? M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you're taking your time answering, I will ping those who remember how it all started: @Ivanvector and Dylanvt: your input on this would be greatly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the fact that the RfC was started on the 24th of May, it's important that you answer this question: was the content that you removed there since March or was it not? M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad is correct here.....content added in March leading to edit wars that then resulted in a RFC on that content. Thus the content was never stable nor received consensus for inclusion. Moxy🍁 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: it was added in March, but it wasn't challenged until the 23rd of May (I think). M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Palestine section at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I argued in the RFC for including the section but that is not how the RFC went. Consensus is required to include controversial material in contentious topics, and as Chetsford explained in great detail that the result was no consensus, that means the disputed section is not included. If I was not already involved I would block all of you for this petty, childish, ridiculous, bullshit edit war, and then the material would be removed anyway. Get your head out of your ass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: the discussion has moved to Talk:Genocide_of_Indigenous_peoples#The_Israel_section_suffers_from_lack_of_RS,_weasel_language_and_mostly_violation_of_NPOV. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE DMH223344 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This persistent edit warring behavior is troublesome, especially in the latest incident: [7], [8]. Please seek the talk page to discuss. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss, from my vantage point, I must admit that this appears quite the contrary. You and your fellow editors are plainly working against the consensus. Despite being reverted multiple times, you persist in adding controversial content at will. I have also observed your repeated and selective removal of Jewish history from the Golan Heights. Considering you've already been cautioned for battleground behavior, I am somewhat astonished that you continue to harass others in this manner. 916crdshn (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be responding to this second incident of baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Levivich (Nishidani) Levivich (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now fully protected in the version prior to the dispute. Take it to Talk:Roman Palestine. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ABHammad. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

zero revert restriction

You have been sanctioned based on a rough consensus of uninvolved administrators based on an Arbitration Enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[{{{decision}}}#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. 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 above is unclear to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I presume this is for ARBPIA, though the template above appears to be missing the final decision. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is just for the ARBPIA topic area. Thanks for pointing that out. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49@Red-tailed hawk see [9]. Are some of those reverts? Doug Weller talk 17:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that these edits (joint diff) removed reference to "psychological and physical torture" that appears to have been first added in this edit ~1 week prior on the basis that it was in the wrong section. Per WP:3RR, [a]n edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. For this reason, the parts of these edits that are rearranging sentences or adding attribution do not strike me as reverts. But, if I were subject to 0RR, I would certainly avoid removing substantial content that was recently added. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you pinged me, several other admins, and one non-admin to a discussion at Talk:Golan Heights. I understand your intent is to show some sort of evidence of tag-team edit warring behavior. However, talk pages are really for discussion about the content of an article; if you believe that there is another fresh clean and clear case of POV-pushing through edit warring, then it would be better to bring it up at some sort of administrative venue (where it can be processed) rather than on an article talk page.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk Isn’t posting there a topic ban violation? Doug Weller talk 17:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misread the tb, sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It would be if the user subject were to a topic ban. But I don't see one at WP:AELOG, nor at WP:AEDR, so I'm not sure what you are referencing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, @Red-tailed hawk. I was about to ask you again to check the POV-pushing and tag-teaming against consensus on the Israel article, which continues with other users (link). As I mentioned on the ARBCOM page, the situation is worsening, and there seems to be no intervention from admins to address this. While @Barkeep49 says ARBCOM will consider the behavior of many of these editors, I'm concerned that if this continues, the content will become irreparably skewed. It feels like ARBCOM has forgotten about this issue, and AE cases consistently end without sanctions when it comes to the old timers despite ongoing violations, making the process totally ineffective... ABHammad (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now from Selfstudier: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=next&oldid=1244176769. Can someone stop the tag-teaming and bullying please? thanks. ABHammad (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ABHammad How is that about you? And editors agreeing with each other is not tag teaming. On the other hand, you have been told before about personal attacks and I hope you know about good faith. Note that even your behaviour here is covered by the contentious topic alert. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller. One editor is removing long-standing content (again, related to the Jewish connection to Israel), he's been reverted, two editors explain why they support the original content, and a discussion is ongoing. But two other editors ignore the discussion and choose to restore the disputed changes anyway. ABHammad (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this. You appear to believe that there should be more sanctions. Do you think sanctions are effective? If so, why? Plenty of accounts have been sanctioned and blocked. What effect did it have? Do you have examples of effectiveness in the PIA topic area in mind? Given that blocking an account has no impact on the account operator's ability to edit in the PIA topic area if they chose to do so, I wonder why you think more sanctions would help? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is IOHANNVSVERVS. Thank you.

I mentioned you in my statement. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Makeandtoss has now also approved an ARBPIA DYK despite it being sourced to problematic sources and fails neutrality". Well it just so happens that article was written by me. Painstakingly over a course of several weeks. By doing a fair amount of research and collecting only scholarly sources (the non-scholarly sources in the article is content that was from before). I went out of my way to find sources that would provide alternate perspectives (such as famed Israeli scholar Yoram Dinstein).

After I wrote it, I started soliciting feedback here, here and here. I was so proud of my work! So naturally, I'm saddened to see someone describe it as "problematic sources and fails neutrality". It would be a lot more productive if you can make comments on Talk:Palestinian right of armed resistance on which exact sources are problematic. And what's non-neutral about it. And then we can resolve it there, or take it WP:RSN as need be. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was about the fact that someone deeply involved with the topic went and accepted this biased DYK in a way that goes way below the mark of what is expected from DYK reviewers. "that the Palestinian right of armed resistance against the Israeli military is often derived from Article 1(4) of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions?" - does that really look like a neutral DYK for you?

Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought this DYK was below what is expected from NPOV and I am happy to see that after noticing this the DYK was changed to a bit more neutral way of phrasing the article. " Did you know... that arguments in favor of a Palestinian right of armed resistance are often based on Article 1(4) of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions?" is a bit less biased than the original. ABHammad (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note re:this that unless I have prior involvement with something, I don't generally respond to pings asking for enforcement. For the moment I'm limiting my enforcement work to formal requests at AE rather than doing article/topic level enforcement. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cops left in town? This is not criticism on you, I know this is all based on volunteering, but if all the cops say they are busy, ... what should one do? ABHammad (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ABHammad! I came to this page after our interactions on the other Wiki page. Hmmm… it looks like some of the other editors here may not have been so kind. The I-P area can get really intense and opinionated. My advice would be to stick to policy and have reliable sources when editing in case of content disputes, which I think you have been doing! In terms of your complaints about Makeandtoss, he can come across very intense! I once told him his words were like bombs! He is amenable to feedback and reasoning, so don’t worry too much about him! Bye for now! Wafflefrites (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm notifying you that I have listed your name at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Seven proposed parties as being among the most active editors in Palestine/Israel noticeboard disputes, and I have proposed that you participate as a party to the case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Icewhiz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

At this point, nothing surprises me.

Behavioral evidence? I hope that's a joke. If we're to use edit summaries such as 'adding info' to find sockpuppeteers, we'd have half the editors on Wikipedia blocked. Anyone with a clear mind can see that I am not connected to Icewhiz or HaOfa in any way. This is persecution driven entirely by politics, reminiscent of Stalin-era purges.

Editors who don't align with the ideology on Wikipedia-joining the demonization of a certain country and people enforced by our unblockable "regulars," who never face consequences, are banned. Those who aren't their friends and don't follow the ideological rules end up blocked after the disruptive regulars file baseless claims against them. The regulars have found their go-to tactic: the Icewhiz accusation. Disagree with them? Sure, they’ll claim everyone is just another account of Icewhiz.

And this happens just as I was about to submit much evidence to ArbCom for PIA5, showing how our community has been distorted and infiltrated. ARBPIA has become blatant propaganda, with our systems (including SPI) weaponized to block individuals based on false claims. Those who filed the case against me are, not suprisingly, parties to the Arbcom case. It's a shame we have come to the point of show trials and kangaroo courts.

If there is any logic or sense left in our system and community, this block should be lifted immediately. ABHammad (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just like your request on your other account I declined earlier, this is total nonsense. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2024 (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.