User talk:Kamel Tebaast

More violations

This is called WP:CANVASSing and is another way to get blocked. Zero^talk 01:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know. KamelTebaast 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I just read about WP:CANVASS. As I understand, if I invite editors with different views, it is not canvassing. I'd invite others now, however, the Speedy (for now) has been removed. KamelTebaast 02:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mahdi Satri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mahdi Satri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Satri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. nableezy - 03:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 03:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahdi Satri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. 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) 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You got me, I am a Palestinian hacker based in the Gaza Strip.

You are very very close from me setting your block as my life goal. Saying I am lying about my identity is more than a personal attack.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you re-read what I wrote, I made no statements about you, I simply asked Nishidani questions. I asked an editor who is all about verifiable sources, where his sources were regarding some of his statements. Unless you and Nishidani have forgotten, we are anonymous editors. [Again, see:Essjay controversy] KamelTebaast 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a correction, Nishidani is not about verifiable sources, Wikipedia is about verifiable sources. Anyway next time you"ll question my identity I"ll take another selfie with Syria.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. My comment was to imply that Nishidani accentuates this often in his writings. So I was questioning the verifiability of his statements. Tizahare shom, ma'od mesukan! KamelTebaast 19:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"תיזהרי שום, מאוד מסוכן?"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

100% KamelTebaast 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"sham" (unless you meant garlic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sham rhymes with ham; shum rhymes with room (garlic); shom rhymes with mom. I meant shom. KamelTebaast 16:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What's 'shom'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Omysfysfybmm, "there"

"Shom" is the Ashkenazi pronunciation of sham. You can ask Dovid (David) about it. At first I was a little surprised Bolter, as an Israeli, wouldn't immediately recognize it, but I guess the younger generations have little to no exposure to people who grew up speaking Yiddish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Dovid. :) Debresser (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Kamel Tebaast, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Fabian Núñez has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

DiannaaYou actually deleted the entire edit from the complete history so that it can't even be viewed by anyone? Why not just state a problem and allow it to be fixed? This can't even be properly discussed now, because I can't see what I edited. Is there a mechanism to challenge your complete deletion? Thank you. KamelTebaast 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Further, as part of your deletion, you wrote that "...this content is about the son, not the subject of this article." The subject of the article was the Speaker of the California assembly and he used his relationship with the governor to get a reduction in his son's sentence. This was international news. That does not justify being in a Wikipedia article? KamelTebaast 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The content is viewable at the source web page, http://tia.redlandsteaparty.net/an/tag/fabian-nunez/. It was the paragraph that starts "Núñez’s son, Esteban was convicted...", along with part of the following paragraph. Normally we don't include material about people's relatives in their articles. The content is only peripherally about the subject of the article. But my primary reason for removing it was the copyright violation. I can send you a copy of the removed material via email if you like. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa Yes, please send me the deleted material. I realized my first mistake was that I inserted work that was written by a prior editor. That won't happen again. However, to the merits of not generally including a relative, this story is what Fabian Núñez is most known for, as reported for years internationally, including recently. Thank you. KamelTebaast 16:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Email sent. Let me know if it doesn't get through. — Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

that Palestinian high school boy

• just fyi, There was a similar situation a couple of years ago. [1] the boy's name was Mohammad Zoabi. he got quite a bit of publicity. I have no idea how his life has gone since, I hope well, but please do not write things like "after he is dead" as you did at AFD. I hope he lives a long, productive, peaceful life.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I actually said a prayer for him when I wrote that, but did not want to interject religion. I, too, hope he lives a long and healthy life. Thanks. KamelTebaast 21:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Kamel Tebaast. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gestrid (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrorism in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palestinian and Ambassador Hotel. 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) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for one month.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

3RR violation at Movement for Black Lives

Your recent editing history at Movement for Black Lives shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have now made four reverts. Please self-revert your last edit or I will report you and you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

MShabazz, I appreciate you giving me the warning before going to Wikicourt over the 3RR. I actually thought it only related to protected pages, but I understand now it is all of Wikipedia. Because I reverted you four times, I'll give you an extra day before I revert you again, but hopefully, by then, you'll have a better source. BTW, am I "Frick or Frack? KamelTebaast 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, I just wanted to point two things out to you. First of all, that reverting at the precise end of 24 hours, is considered "gaming the system", in that it sticks to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, and is actionable just as though you had reverted within 24 hours. There is no precise limit for this, but I was recently topic banned for a revert after 26 hours. Secondly, that your threat to revert after 24 hours, even if it would be a safe margin after 24 hours, is still edit warring, and as such is also actionable in certain sensitive areas where discretionary actions can be taken (the IP-conflict area is one example of such an area). You should try to reach consensus instead. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the joke

Dear Kamel Tebaast, thanks for your edit playing on the famous scene from 'And Justice for All.' I happened to watch this film very recently - of course I also watched it when it first was shown in Israel in the 1970's, but I was too young then to fully appreciate what a great film it was. It's still a great film, its message is just as relevant now as it was then, and probably even more relevant today. It's truly a timeless film.

Every time I think about your highly creative play on the film, I smile. I happen to disagree with many of your contributions to I/P articles and talk pages, but I like your sense of humor. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Thanks for the compliment. At least we can agree on something humorous. Although (for me) the quote from Network is more than apropos, it is way overused. KamelTebaast 04:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: Thanks for the feedback on 'Network.' By the way, at the AE board, I am not sure why you changed 'apotheosis' to 'hypothesis'? Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

Copyright violations are an exception to 3RR/1RR, genius. Restoring copyright violations -- there's no excuse for that. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also no rule that you can revert someone else's edit because it is an 1RR violation. The only thing you can go about that is take them to an administrative noticeboard. Zero^talk 11:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thank you. I was just noting the 1RR, but reverted for the edit(s) that I noted. Is there a specific policy against making a wall of unrelated edits (some legit, WP:COPY, some not) in order to circumvent being reverted or does it fall under the umbrella of gaming the system? KamelTebaast 17:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saying "COPYVIO" is not enough. It is unclear what exact copyvio Malik is talking about, considering most of what he removed is attributed quotes inside quotation marks. He did not explain on the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)

Outside of what might possibly be construed as COPYVIOs, there were many 1RR violations, unless there is a 1RR exception to remove "fluff". KamelTebaast 18:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Consecutive edits are counted as one edit. So there's only one potential 1RR violation, depending on if there's actually a COPYVIO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Here is my take: Revert #1 (NO mention of COPYVIO). User:GHcool reverted here. Revert #2 here just outside of 24 hours. (First mention of COPYVIO to game system and, as you wrote, no details as to which edits are COPYVIO and no discussion in Talk.) I reverted here. Revert #3 here (within 24 hours of last revert). Aside from 1RR, add disruptive editing. KamelTebaast 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you two geniuses seem unlikely to figure this out on your own, in this edit summary I wrote "clean-up, cut fluff -- stop copying and pasting from the source -- also, Lowy is a member of the US House of Representatives, not a member of the Texas House, and her introduction of a resolution doesn't mean it passed". Note the blue link to WP:COPYVIO in the edit summary.

GHcool reflexively reverted every one of my changes with the asinine edit summary "rv - please discuss before unilaterally deciding to remove cited material" -- as if it's my responsibility to get his approval for my edits. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to add material to build consensus for inclusion. So I reflexively reverted him; there's no requirement that I discuss copyright violations on the talk page. In fact, the message above the edit box on every page says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted."

Kemal Tebaast, you reflexively reverted my edit, and I reflexively reverted you. Copyright violations cannot be restored to the article. They are an explicit exception to WP:3RR and therefore 1RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with how the article stands at the time of this writing. --GHcool (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So many words, and still no explanation of what exactly was a copyright violation that required immediate removal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

AE

[2] can you believe this shit? For some editors discussing is a must and 1RR is a rule, but others can do whatever. They used to be more discreet, but I guess years of impunity makes the ruling class neglectful. I'm going to ask Seraphim on his/her talk page to comment on Sean as well. I'm curious to see what happens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can believe this shit. I read it earlier and thought the same thing. I was going to post something on the other AE, but since you are posting on the Talk, I'll hold tight. KamelTebaast 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to appeal AE closes at ANI you think? Or is there some other procedure? Any idea? Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say, and perhaps it's time to shine some on this little corner of Wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have ideas, and it's a big corner. KamelTebaast 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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. If you have questions, please contact me.

- MrX 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC) - MrX 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Email regarding WP:COPYVIO

Hi. I don't discuss routine Wikipedia stuff by email, for both transparency and privacy reasons. Your email confuses me a little. If you have written a paragraph, without copying from somewhere else (i.e. 100% your own work), you hold whatever copyright exists in that paragraph and there should normally not be an issue. If you have copied something written by someone else, then you do not hold the copyright to that copied part. Small, relevant and necessary, quotations are normally ok (when clearly marked as quotations), but otherwise it should not be done.

The only official place to formally ask about copyright of text, as far as I know, would be Wikipedia:Copyright problems. That place isn't really setup as a Q&A area, but you might get some help by asking on the talk page there. For informal advice, either Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions or Wikipedia:Help desk, where the answers will almost always be necessarily non-committal when it comes to legal issues (which is ultimately what copyright ends up being). Hypothetical questions, particularly, can never really get a firm answer. Please do ask more questions at either of those venues, just don't expect definitive answers to open ended questions — the best we can normally do in cases like that is point to the policies and let you draw your own conclusions from them (unless you give some clear indication of something which is clearly forbidden, where we would probably be able to indicate that).

Murph9000 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

AE #2

You should note how he "notified" [3] you that he thinks there's a copyvio problem. The "genius" jab, which he also repeated later in case you missed it the first time, is (theoretically, depending on the people involved) not acceptable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I've already laid out the case. Maybe that can be your contribution. Thanks. KamelTebaast 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather stay out of it unless I'm brought up or someone says something so false I can't stand it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:Attallah Shabazz, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should create a new category count for you: threats. KamelTebaast 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request closed

An Arbitration Enforcement case[4] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:

All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Incomprehensible edit summary

There is no Synth there. The sources speak of 'problematic', 'simplistic' and 'reductive'. 'classify as' is a precise synonym for 'designate as'. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) "reductive" and "simplistic" are redundant--no problem using either; (2) the exact quote was "reductive essentialism" not reductive. The quote was attributed to studies. You then extrapolated it to apply to government designations. That is SYNTH (3) No problem with classification. KamelTebaast 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kamel_Tebaast nableezy - 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Louis Santos, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Commutation, Commuted and Mesa College. 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) 10:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the policy on Biographies of Living Persons with this edit, linking to the BLP violation to prove a point in a Hamas-related content dispute at Talk:Hamas here, and persistent disruption in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC), you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

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. 

---

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 message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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.

• After discussing the circumstances of this block with Kamel Tebaast, I am convinced that they understand what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and genuinely accept responsibility for their own actions. As a result of an appeal via email with the blocking administrator (myself), I am hereby commuting the length of the block to time served. The indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA content remains in effect, and additionally Kamel is provided with official notification of special enforcement on Biographies of Living Persons. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: It has been 123,033,600 seconds and counting since you banned me from WP:ARBPIA. Considering the extreme length of time, might you please remove the ban? Thank you for the consideration. KamelTebaast 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Louis Santos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Louis Santos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Louis Santos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing again

Kamel Tebast, you informed only one person about the AfD mentioned just above, and that was User:Atlantic306, who had previously removed the PROD. (I see him thanking you in the AfD discussion.) That is improper, as the choice of people to inform is supposed to be neutral. Please see WP:CANVASS, especially the part about vote-stacking. I noticed you have been warned about canvassing before, in July.[5] You replied then that you hadn't known, but now you'd read and understood WP:CANVASS. I'm sorry to see you seem to have forgotten it again. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I have not "forgotten", rather I thought that I was following policy, although apparently wrong. Under "Appropriate notification", it states that I may contact "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" and "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I thought that User:Atlantic306 fit that description as they made a substantial edit and wrote their thoughts regarding the topic. I also left Atlantic306 a neutral notice. KamelTebaast 16:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Why have you taken such an interest in my activities? KamelTebaast 19:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't, as such. I saw the AE report on you, and was concerned to note The Wordsmith's quick close and block, followed after just a few days by an unblock. As I've told Wordsmith on his page, I'm not happy about you being unblocked after an e-mail conversation; you had committed serious BLP vios, and I would have liked to see, in public, any new understanding you have gained since then of the BLP policy. You understand that other admins may want to keep an eye on that new understanding; it should preferably not be a secret between you and the blocking/unblocking admin. I believe in transparency. And the recurrence of the canvassing problem (surely you don't really think that alerting only the person who removed the PROD, and no other editors of the page, was neutral behaviour?) seemed relevant to worries about possible recurrences of the BLP problem.

So, per my discussion with Wordsmith here, he has asked you if you will allow him to pass on your e-mail conversation, and you have declined. OK. I don't really take a great interest in your activities, or in your style of letter-writing; I just think respect for WP:BLP is extremely important. If you don't like your letters passed on, which I can easily understand, you could if you like write here below what your current understanding of WP:BLP is. That would be useful. But it's up to you. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: As part of my unblock, The Wordsmith added special enforcement on Biographies of Living Persons. Before I respond to you, please tell me what that means? Thank you. KamelTebaast 21:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: If it helps, I'm probably one of the strongest pro-BLP admins remaining on enwiki. I was one of the driving forces behind the Great Unsourced BLP Mass Extinction Event several years ago, which culminated in the creation of WP:BLPPROD as a compromise. If I had doubts about his sincerity, I would have declined the appeal and referred it to the community. He is aware that if he does it again he will be reblocked, indefinitely. I may not be able to share his emails, but I will quote one snippet of my own message to him. "If I unblock, I would also place on your talkpage a notification that Discretionary Sanctions also apply to BLP information, anywhere on Wikipedia. The terms of this can be found at WP:NEWBLPBAN. You should understand that if another incident like the one you were blocked for happens, an indefinite block would be entered into the log as BLP enforcement, which is extremely rare to be overturned on appeal."

Given how the friendly-admin-block/quick-unblock has been used as a tactic in the past by other admins, I certainly understand and respect your healthy skepticism. I'm just of the belief that blocks like that should be preventative, and I believe that KT has learned from his mistake. Now that he has been notified of BLP Special Enforcement, I (or you, or any admin) can reblock swiftly if there is another infraction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly why I questioned Bishonen about the BLP Special Enforcement. Having that over my head and, at the same time, threats from Bishonen about reopening the AE case, seem punitive. KamelTebaast 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't argue with admins and do what he asks.

--Shrike (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

BLM

Hey, I put in minor non-biased information, and I believe it was by mistake. I will reverse it until you explain either why you did it or whether it was accidental.

Thanks! Nate Rybner 00:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I explained. No sources. I strongly suggest that you self revert your last revert. KamelTebaast 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

1rr

You violated the 1RR at Beit Alfa. I'll be reporting the violation if it is not self-reverted by the time I press save at AE. nableezy - 18:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kamel Tebaast. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

1rr

You just broke the 1rr on Azzam Pasha quotation. Since you have already been reverted (without given a chance to self revert), I will not be reporting you this time. Please be more careful your editing in the future, Huldra (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It is you who needs to be more careful. I challenge you to report me. I see that your pack has come out to play. First Nableezy, then Zero, now you. The only one missing is Nishidani. The first was an edit, not a revert. Maybe reach out to MShabazz... he's pretty good at explaining edits vs. reverts. KamelTebaast 00:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Now this is strange, you have been here, what, 6 months? And I can frankly not recall editing any other article than the Azzam Pasha quotation with you? And still you seem perfectly familiar with me??

I have to ask: Have you edited under any other user name? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You're discounting your Wikipedia fame and being way too humble. I was in a room with a few presidents; I remember them, but I'm sure they don't remember me. Besides, just because I don't edit in a discussion, doesn't mean that I'm not monitoring it. But let's be open. How long do you think it would take me to find 50 talk pages where you and the Rat Pack are attacking pro-Israel editors? KamelTebaast 05:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

How very clever of you; avoiding answering my question. So I will repeat it; have you ever edited Wikipedia before, under another user name? Huldra (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

First, answer me three questions: 1) Why do you want to know? 2) What is that called when an editor has two accounts? 3) Does it violate policy asking me that? You answer me sufficiently, I'll answer your question. KamelTebaast 22:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

1) I want to know who I am dealing with, and if I have dealt with them before 2) You tell me. I would like to point out it is not against the rules, though. It depends on how you use them. Say, if I was (in RL) a chemist, I could have a different account to edit the chemistry articles; as far as I understand the rules, that would be perfectly acceptable. Double voting, or anything like that, is of course forbidden 3) Nope, but if I went everywhere telling people "Kamel Tebaast is a sock!" ...then that would have violated WP:ASPERSIONS Huldra (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra:

• Simply because I remember you, and you do not remember me, does not make me a sockpuppet. Not only did we edit together on the same thread, but you communicated with me here, and you voted for deletion of the Mahdi Satri article that I created, with your "when I was 17, I was 100% pro-Israeli, too!!" quote. I'll accept your apology for implying that I am a sockpuppet.

In taking your example above:

• What if you're, say, a chemist, and you wander over to the Arab-Israel conflict, where your other account lives, is that against policy?
• What if you're, say, a chemist, and you wander over to the Arab-Israel conflict, where your other account lives, and you edit in the same article, is that against policy?
• What if you're, say, a chemist, and, you wander over to the Arab-Israel conflict, where your other account lives, and you revert an editor, that editor reverts you, then your other account reverts that editor. Is that against policy?
• Lastly: do any of my questions above have a different answer depending on whether or not the editor with two accounts (doing all these things) is an administrator?
• Cheers! KamelTebaast 04:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten the Mahdi Satri-thread: apologies...

I was going to tell you to ask someone else about alternative accounts, as I don't have one....but then I remembered: I do!! Yes, User:Ennifire (though I am not sure I remember the password any more, after this account became a WP:SUL account, I haven't used it.)

The policy of alternative account has varied over the years, generally becoming more strict. I recall in my early days there was a woman who was caught with two admin accounts(!) As far as I recall, the only thing that happened was that she was stripped of one of them, but still retained the other admin-account, and was not punished in any other way.

As for what is expected of admins versus "common editors", there seem to be two different schools. Personally, I expect better behaviour from admins than from "common editors". But there seem to be some who believe in the Super Mario -effect, that you "earn" some leeway.

And yes, if I had an alternative account, say User:MsChemist, I would say that I could, say, edit about the chemicals in the Dead Sea, or any chemical products from any Palestinian/Israeli, etc.

It is all about being disruptive, or not. One example: User Gilabrand is topic banned from the Palestine/Israel area. She still often edit in the area (There is no way, that say Sasa, Israel is outside her topic ban). But since she basically does pure copy-editing or uncontroversial edits, none of us are reporting her. However, if she did anything like this again, I would go straight to WP:AE, and she would most probably be heading for a block.

There are very good reasons for any of us who edits in the Palestinian/Israel area to have separate, other account, if we edit in other areas. There are some rather nasty people out there, like this or this, and sometimes they follow you around, reverting every edit you do...(Besides sending death/rape-threaths). Virtually every log here is one ..or many....death/rape-threaths. Everyone who edits in the IP area and are not consider pro-Israeli enough have similar talk-pages. Therefore, if you "outed me" as User:MsChemist, I would be absolutely furious, and I would move heavens and earth to get you blocked, as it would mean that I could no longer peacefully edit with my User:MsChemist- account. (I would probably have to get User talk:MsChemist permanently semi-protected, too, just like my User talk:Huldra is).......Grrrr. Huldra (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra: I forgot to mention, the first time I think I saw your name was on the history of edits at Beit Alfa... I made some edits after you. Regards, KamelTebaast 22:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the only edit I have had there is from March 2015, adding "Citation needed", more than a year before you registered....But according to my edit count, I have now edited 7,801 different pages, so yeah; I guess you will see my name here and there..... Huldra (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I saw your name on the View History... it is only seven edits away from mine. KamelTebaast 23:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting like this, but I would like to clarify a couple things. First, I know of an admin that was recently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. That is, they were vandalizing with their other non-admin accounts. There was no special sanction against them getting admin rights again, should they ever successfully appeal for an unblock. All they'd have to do is pass the normal Request for Adminship process (which is extremely hard without having been blocked as a sock), but, because of the reason they were blocked, there's almost no chance of them ever passing another RfA, not even in 10 years.

Second, details about having legitimate alternate accounts can be found at WP:LEGITSOCK. — Gestrid (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Kamel Tebaast. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Kamel Tebaast nableezy - 18:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm leaving you notification here to make it official that the AE filing resulted in no sanctions, but a warning against future editing while impaired. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Please don't change other editor's comments on talk pages. See WP:TPO. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't enough to simply revert and state in the summary, you needed to also write it on my Talk page? KamelTebaast 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of AE

G'day, WP:AE is only used to:

• request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator,
• request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions,
• request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or
• appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators.

What this matter is about doesn't appear to fall within the purposes of AE, so I have closed the case. The most appropriate venue is probably WP:ANI. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the heads up! A friend alerted me as to why it was kicked out. Never knew... learn something everyday. Thanks again for the explanation. KamelTebaast 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage question.

Hello, I have posted a question on the talkpage of the United States territorial acquisitions table article which is probably best dealt with by you.     ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kamel Tebaast. 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)

Nomination of Edward Saltzberg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Saltzberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Saltzberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugo Maisnik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugo Maisnik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Maisnik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huldra (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kamel Tebaast/Archives/2016/July

Hello, Kamel Tebaast,

I found this archived talk page in the main space talk area so I have moved it to your User talk space, User talk:Kamel Tebaast/Archives/2016/July. Just thought I'd let you know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)