User talk:WatanWatan2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Foreign relations of the Arab League, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. El_C 19:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was unsourced material added? WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lebanon 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WatanWatan2020, you may actually have a point; I am not sure but attacking editors and getting into edit wars is not going to get you anywhere and ultimately will not be tolerated. You do need to get into the habit of starting and engaging in discussions on articles' talk pages for controversial changes, which yours clearly are. I do suggest reading through past discussions to gain some knowledge about how consensus works, various points of view, Wikipedia's policies, etc. Jordan is a great example of a long debate about it's borders. S0091 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that users who have made less than 500 edits may not edit in the area of conflict, as you did in this edit: [1] and several others. For details see:

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You deserve the Arab Homeland barnstar. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saudi Arabia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Flynas, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added a citation for the membership to the Arab Air carriers organization. Although, there are plenty of airline articles with memberships and alliances added without citing any sources. So, I am now simply curious as to why you focused on Flynas article requiring the need to provide citation for such membership. Again, I placed the citation as you asked. Thanks WatanWatan2020 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.169.170 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please make yourself familiar with our guidelines before any further edits. Stating sources, citations and summaries for all changes is mandatory. Also note that airlines in liquidation are threated as defunct / former airlines throughout this Wiki. Several of your edits have been undone as they pose guideline and content violations.

1) how would you block someone from an anonymous user? I suspect I know exactly who you are and that’s why you are threatening with a block because on your main account you may possess such power. 2) all the information I added have been with proper citations and sources. It is you who in fact are implementing wrong information on purpose, such as in the case of Palestinian airlines main headquarters; I added a sourced citation, but you removed it and placed a different location for HQ without any sourced citation, therefore you are the one violating wiki guild lines. 3. You are harassing me by stalking my every move on Wikipedia. Every edit you’ve made so far, is on all the articles I just edited and you are actually only attacking my edits. 4) I am giving you that same warning, that legal action will be taken if you don’t stop stocking and harassing me, and If you don’t stop vandalizing articles with proper information. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please provide the link to where in the wiki guidelines does it state that airlines in the process of liquidation are threaded as former or defunct airlines. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to add the same link to every article, this can be considered spam. A reliable source in the main article is sufficient as it has been for years. Also, self-referencing within Wikipedia (meaning using another Wiki article as a citation) is not allowed. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.169.170 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the Palestinian Airlines article. You’re also purposely implementing false information that it’s headquarters are based in Arish Egypt when the fact is that is actually in Gaza, Palestine. The citation was there as well for it. There was also no use of referencing to a Wikipedia page, they were sources all from the exterior. It seems you have some sort of political motivation to keep vandalizing this airlines web page. By the way, starting the process of liquidation does not mean that the company is closed down. It is closed down when liquidation is completed. This should be known to you if you study economics. Please stop vandalizing this article, and I recommend you get an actual user instead of doing such things from an anonymous mode. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the feeling that I know exactly who you are. You’ve been stalking all Edits and reversing them out of spite. I will take legal action if your harassment and persistent stalking, coupled with The continuous vandalism doesn’t stop. Again, I have a feeling I know exactly who you are. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the legal threats made above. Please also see
  WP:OUTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 December 2020 (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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason I am requesting an unblock is because I am wrongfully accused of malicious actions by a specific user who seems to be running multiple accounts in which I have been stalked and harassed. This is all in regards to updated information that I was publishing with cited sources; said user started to use different excuses to keep removing them. When I met his demands as per wiki guidelines to use sources from outside Wikipedia.. he logged in on an anonymous account without any prior history (completely fresh) and threatened me with a block all the while removing the updated information similar to how said user was doing. Without any investigations, I was complained by said user to an administrator who swiftly implemented the block the next minute without investigating, nor asking any questions. I have receipts of all such interactions for proper administrators to view and make judgement upon. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To be unblocked, you need to first unequivocally withdraw your

threats of legal action

. While we cannot stop you from pursuing any legal rights you have in your country, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, and if you have any outstanding threats, or have a legal action underway, you cannot edit Wikipedia until the threats are withdrawn or any legal action resolved. You can pursue any grievances you have in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both.

The block is also for violations of

WP:OUTING. As your request does not address these two points, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (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.

Just a comment, in case there is a misunderstanding here (it looks to me like English is not WatanWatan2020's native language). First, I don't see where WatanWatan2020 has violated

Second, WatanWatan2020, what do you mean exactly by "legal action"? Wikipedia does not allow editors to threaten to take other editors to court in the "real world". If you meant instead that you would take action within Wikipedia, like registering a complaint with an admin or at

To IamNotU, thank you very much. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to clarify, I hope I clarified your concerns with the statements above. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's what I thought. 331dot, it looks to me like this block was a result of a misunderstanding. Can you reverse it, or does WatanWatan2020 need to make another unblock request? --IamNotU (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU The legal action aspect seems resolved, but the user did make statements above suggesting they might reveal someone's identity. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I never ever stated or suggested that I am going to reveal someone’s identity. I simply said that I have a feeling I know who it is in reference to him stalking and harassing me. As you said to clarify these 2 points, i did. Can I be unblocked now please? Thanks.

WP:SPI

) - not that they know anything about their real-life identity. I think WatanWatan2020 has explained that pretty clearly above. I don't doubt that there are some issues with WatanWatan2020's edits, but let's not muddy the waters over miscommunication.

WatanWatan2020, at this point it might be good to make another unblock request. Just keep it short and explain what you meant by "legal action" and "I suspect I know exactly who you are". There's no need to go into what the other person has done, that only makes it less likely to get unblocked. --IamNotU (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user may make another unblock request; I'm okay if the blocking admin is okay. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I appreciate you guys. I will make another unblock request. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, you are the exact person I am speaking about in terms of false accusations against me and running multiple accounts that got me blocked. For you to come with another accusation that I may be related to a company or engaging in advertisement purposes, is yet another attempt by you to smear me and accuse me of malicious intent. You are also now stalking me yet again as you have with in the past; an example is everywhere I have complained to an admin or editor, you followed me up with false accusations and then informed them that I am blocked and that I shouldn’t be worried about.

I ask that you stay away from my matters and allow it to be resolved by neutral parties. Please leave me alone. I have made sure to point out that there is possibly a sock puppetry scheme running against me. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are accusing me of leading some campaign against your spamming articles with links to this organization then you are quite sadly mistaken. That IP you accuse, 188.174.169.170 is from Germany and my own user page quite clearly shows I am from Canada. You can start by reading

WP:NPA. What there is here is an editing consensus, by a number of different editors, that the additions you made to these articles are spam and do not belong there. My warning above was given because you have been so aggressively edit-warring to insert ref spam into these articles that it looks like you are working for the organization in question. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As per the Wikipedia page relating to sock puppetry, there is other methods one can deploy to engage in sock puppetry. For example, one can ask someone they personally know to log in with an ip and do a favor for them amongst many other things. Arbitrators on Wikipedia may get to the bottom of it at some point. They have the tools and means to do so. I am not edit warring with anyone, it is a socket puppet scheme by an individual that isn’t getting his way while trying to control certain Wikipedia articles to himself. I added proper information with cited sources, while you try to shrug it off as spam, when in fact the same information I was adding was in other airline articles already. They were also without any citations to which I added. Leave me alone. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make wild sock puppetry accusations against other editors unsupported by facts, make legal and "outing" threats, try and play the victim and then whine that editors are warning you about your unacceptable and disruptive behaviour. You are clearly

WP:NOTTHERE. If an admin does unblock you and you go back to spamming articles then your edits will be reversed, as we have an editing consensus not to include them. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WatanWatan2020, I haven't looked into this at all, but if you have clear evidence of sock puppetry, you should file a report at

WP:SPI, and not discuss it anywhere else. Otherwise, Ahunt is correct - making accusations of sock puppetry or stalking, without evidence, violates several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. On the other hand, I think it's been established that WatanWatan2020 has not made legal threats or attempted outings. It would be best for all to focus on the validity of the edits rather than each other. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don’t think it has been established that WatanWatan2020 has not made a legal threat. Firstly, their first language may not be English but it is highly proficient. I don’t believe there was any confusion about the meaning of “legal”. Secondly, from the context it was clearly a legal threat - it was linked to knowing the editor’s identity: “ I also have the feeling that I know exactly who you are. You’ve been stalking all Edits and reversing them out of spite. I will take legal action if your harassment and persistent stalking,”. Thirdly, IanNotU, you gave WatanWatan the explanation, which they jumped on. They didn’t come up with it themselves. Whilst it’s good that WatanWatan has withdrawn the threat it would be a more credible if they admitted they made a mistake in making it rather than claiming it was never meant to be a legal threat. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To IamNotU, I understand what you are saying and I will abide by such recommendations. Thanks. To Decausa, I have clarified what I meant by “legal” in that I was going to ask another administrator to look into it. I also declared that I neither pursued “legal action” nor will I. For future reference, I learned that it is proper to say “ I will take this matter to wiki administrators” to be very clear. I apologize and won’t use such words that may give the wrong impression ever again. In regards to the “outing” accusation, I never said that. I even clarified in the other discussion multiple times. It was simply a tactic by the accuser to place me in into as many violations as possible to give pretext for a block. I also did not jump on anything IamNotU said, I only thanked him for helping me clarify what I’ve been trying to say all along. I also appreciate his recommendations on matters that I may learn from. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fair enough.

WP:THREAD.) DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2020 (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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline of misformed template. Chetsford (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason: hey there, the reason why I am requesting an unblock is because I was wrongly accused of trying to “out” someone. Also, saying that I was gonna take “legal action” was taken completely out of context. What I meant by this was that I will take the matter to an administrator here within Wikipedia, so the “legal action” was in reference to Wikipedia guidelines and how it resolves disputes. Never ever did I mean anything different by such a statement. I declared openly that I never did and never will pursue any action outside of Wikipedia and I apologized for the confusion and clarified both points multiple times. I hope that I am unblocked. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

To be honest, I find your explanation about the legal threats only marginally convincing, however, everyone else seems fine with it so I AGF and presume I'm being unreasonably skeptical. In light of the above conversation, it also seems there is a general agreement by you not to engage in outing, nor to engage in sockpuppetry accusations outside of SPI. Whether or not you ever did or your comments were, like the legal matter, simply misconstrued is neither here nor there provided you've expressed a commitment not to do so. I would personally advise you attempt to steer clear of the editor in question, but that's a matter for your individual discretion.
Anyway, long story short, you are hereby UNBLOCKED. Chetsford (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion? I am not seeing it. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WatanWatan2020 --IamNotU (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is simply too lacking as many other Saudi Arabian related articles on Wikipedia compared to the Arabic version as can be seen below:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/مطبخ_سعودي

It would be a welcome thing for Saudi Arabian or Arab editors to improve it to the standard seen on the Arabic version of the article or even better and more extensive than that. Kindly spread the word if you know any Saudi Arabian or Arab editors. Goes for many Saudi Arabian related English article as stated. Thank you.

--Photomenal (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Saudi Arabia 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.
I’ve opened a discussion on the talk page about the Israel/Gulf of Aqaba issue you’ve been edit warring with Photomenal. resolve it there and no more reverts otherwise you’ll both end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Levantine Arabic 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.
PLEASE NOTE: You and User:A455bcd9 reverted each other 9 times each yesterday on that article. If I had seen the edit war yesterday, I would have blocked both of you on the spot. Any future edit warring may result in you being blocked from editing. - Donald Albury 14:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Albury,

I understand your message here. But as i posted in the administrator board in response to being added there by User:A455bcd9 , this user had published the most obvious false information, even without sources. For example, he listed Israel as an Arab country and when i made the correction, he reverted it back to how he had it with the wrong information. He also then decides to keep removing that Levantine Arabic is spoken by the Arabs within the Levant. Now he was listing information without sources, such as Israel is an Arab country. But the moment that i make an edit, he starts inquiring and requiring sources for this most basic and well known information. He also removed sources i added claiming an error in typo when there was none such. If you check such pages, he has also deleted the edits of others and seems to have been controlling these pages for quite a while with this wrong information. my question is, what is his intention of listing this wrong information on purpose? Does it not violate the integrity of authenticity within Wikipedia articles? The information within my edit is accurate, and cannot be refuted. His information is false and can easily be refuted off the top of ones head. I asked him why he listed Israel as an Arab state, he gave no answer and proceeded to try and make me seem the guilty one by reporting me to admin. The articles as it is should remain standing. I organized the template under “writing script/form” to make it look more neat without any information changed, and he deleted that. Mr. Albury, he wants to control these pages, the Levantine Arabic and Mashriq where not even trying to organize simple areas is allowed. I agree to leave the pages as it is because this is the most accurate. If you would like the records to show where he continuously puts in false information, i can show you. Individuals like this should be penalized for this behavior. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2021 (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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.

— kwami (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did you not see that there is no consensus? Did you even check the talk page that has been taking place in that article? Please also check what the meaning of consensus means here on Wikipedia. It is not unanimity, nor the result of a vote, but rather to reach an agreement. Therefore, what you did was disregard the discussion on the matter, and implement the page by your own merit. To finally add, half of the users mentioned in the alleged consensus was in regards to different points. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The judgement of three linguist who've commented on the talk page is that consensus is against you. And yes, ppl agreed with some of your points, which I presume is why the other editor has conceded and kept them: because they're working with consensus rather than against it. If you feel there are errors that should be corrected, please bring them up specifically, rather than blanket reverting. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The revert to the form i am making includes all of that. Please read the talk page. Consensus is not unanimity neither the result of a vote either. Please check its description. and Please check the recent talk page. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think 'consensus' is. Again, if you believe there are errors or problems with the article, bring them up at talk for discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in violation of the 3RR rule. It is indeed you that are implementing material that is not agreed upon in the discussion that has taken place. I suspect that there was this effort in tandem to get me to return the page to its original form at least 3 times so that the excuse of violating the 3RR rule could be used for complaint to ANI. I will be prepared to respond there. You violated the WP:Consensus and disregarded the discussion that has taken place there on the talk page completely. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I'm reporting you to ANI for violating 3RR. There's a good chance you'll be blocked again. If you self-revert now, they'll probably consider it resolved, and indeed I'll remove the report. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. There is a long, long discussion about it in the talk page. It is another user wanting to propose changes to the article. He has wanted changes to 9 points. I made the compromise with him and let him change 7 of 9. there is 0 compromise from him, thus 0 effort in actually attempting to reach a consensus. And i know what consensus is, per WP rules. An article is there on it. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true: I just checked. You haven't reverted yourself. I'm filing the ANI report now. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When i said “i already did” i meant that i already brought up my concerns to the proposed changes in the talk page, in response to when you said that i should bring up my concerns in the talk page.

And i will explain there at the ANI my position firmly. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made the compromise with him and let him change 7 of 9 Do you think this is some kind of tug war? What if your points are just weaker and henceforth get less community support from uninvolved editors than A455bcd9's collaborative efforts? It is your firmness that has made you violate the 3RR-rule in spite of your full awareness (see multiple warnings above), and which made you among other things staunchly re-introduce basic infobox style violations which were – oddly enough – not even in your own intent. –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Levantine Arabic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all - many thanks for letting me know, I have restored my edits. GiantSnowman 20:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

I will follow your instructions to have it moved of course. Although I will wait on your response to see if i still made the mistake after my explanation here. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dont know where you get the audacity from to issue such threats when you are an anonymous user with 1-2 edits. Also, there was already a discussion held on the matter, and someone else reverted your vandalism onto that page. So, you will be reported and therefore blocked. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

-- Sahle-Work Zewde, administrator

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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because something fishy is going on here. An anonymous user came to the shatt al-arab article and reverted edits that already were discussed. Another user undid his edits, although he went back and re-implemented them. And so I then undid His edit. He then came onto my talk page warning me that I will be blocked. He has only 1-3 edits. He also knows very well the workings of wiki and how to issue warnings. I suspect sock puppetry. And, I am wondering who has blocked me? How is this not investigated? Something fishy is going on here WatanWatan2020 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked. Yamla (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2022 (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.

It said I was blocked earlier and indeed there was a hold on my ability to edit. Whats going on here? an anonymous IP, a potential sock puppet is operating this problem WatanWatan2020 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hassan (surname). - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jawad (name), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Suleiman, you may be blocked from editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other guy keep repeating the same thing, but provide 0 response when I press the issue. Suleiman is an Arabic Origin Name. Shlomo is the Hebrew Origin Name. Both names are Semitic and are cognates to each other.

Now, I will see if you provide a response or simply want to cause an issue for no reason. I will be waiting for your reply WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WatanWatan2020, I didn't see this until now. In the future, tag or ping me so that I know you've responded to my comment, and are likewise expecting a follow-up response. A few things: 1) we go by what reliable sources say, and don't use original research. And I'm sorry, that appears to be what your assertion is based on. There is a rather strong scholarly consensus that the Arabic name is an adaptation of the Hebrew. 2) The name doesn't appear in the historical record amongst Arab peoples until the very late pre-Islamic era, indicating that it is a borrowing (most likely from Christianized Arabs). 3) If you want to assert that this may not be the case within the article, find a handful of high-quality reliable sources stating as much. You know how this works. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please... Loose the attitude? Stop making personal attacks, and stop leveling accusations against other editors. If you make accusations of bad-faith editing against me or anyone else again (seemingly because they revert or disagree with you), such as the one you made on the talk page that other users are deliberately "falsifying" things, I'll have to ask that you be blocked. Please, try to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Refrain from commenting on the supposed motivations of other users, absent a really, really good reason. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Operation Claw Lock. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heart of Asia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding periods to the ends of sentence fragments in list/tables, as you did with these edits [2][3][4]. These are sentence fragments and should not have a period, per

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no disruption on the Afghanistan article, and I have also not shown much interest in Pakistan or India, that is the first error by @TheTimesAreChanging. The second thing is, is that information with sources was added. It is general information about its history and its present. This information is accurate and precise. @TheTimesAreChanging should take the effort in actually contributing to articles, not deleting entire paragraphs because he takes issue with one sentence within it. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Afghan (ethnonym), you may be blocked from editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ==[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The response was provided at the noticeboard. Please do not permeate the talk page here with repetitive warnings. You have listed it twice. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is WatanWatan2020. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is the link? I cannot find it. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to create the talk on my page with the one word “Notice”? That is not nice if you did. It is a shame and uncalled for. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the stray text (added by mistake). The link should work now; my apologies for the delay. (Short delays are common when filing AE reports because notification must be provided prior to submitting the report in order for it be correctly processed.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Herat (1793–1863). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2022 (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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is absolutely uncalled for. The very first problem now is that the admins do not even investigate what the matter is. Have any of the admins involved in my block investigated the matter of the dispute? What it seems is that the very matter of the dispute was swept under the rug, the most important aspect of it. You went and listened to an individual that has a grand history of undoing peoples edits with citations and within them. How is that not being checked? When one comes to the admin board and lodges a complaint, the admin should investigate the matter impartially and to the end. That is what the admin responsibility entails. It was that user, that disrupted the edit with links, sources and citations, an entire paragraph that had various sorts of information, when he only took issue with one. Is that not a violation of WP rules? This is practically complicity by whoever implemented the block because such an admin should be impartial and investigate the matter. I am being blocked with the excuse being used of “my behavior”. It is preposterous that such an excuse is being used. The back and forth would never commence had @TheTimesAreChanging not deleted such information, that I was even thanked for by another prominent user for the contribution. I do not engage in vandalism, POV Pushing, and undoing peoples edits like such a user has done. They continue to permeate my talk page with warnings, working in sync to try to make me look overtly guilty. I am asking to be unblocked due to the matter not being investigated and an impartial judgement being passed. It is very very unfair. This sort of behavior would not fly an impartial court in real life, where the judge uses an excuse of purported behavior to find someone guilty rather than look at the actual topic of the matter. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The main responsibility of an admin is to prevent disruption to the project. You clearly edit warred, and seem to be trying to justify it, not tell us why it was wrong. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2022 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins, please take a look at this AE thread --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:35, 30 May 2022 (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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am requesting an unblock on my account. Below is my formal request in writing: I am requesting the unblock so that I may return to editing on Wikipedia. Through this editing, wikipedia will continue to be improved as I am sure most editors' contributions are for this purpose. In my case, I am currently

indefinitely blocked. Though, my original reprimand was a 72 hour ban. So the indefinite block came after the 

72 hour ban expired. I was not informed of it, nor was there an indication that this would follow on the temporary reprimand. When I checked Wikipedia after 5 days from the moment of the 72 hour ban, I then realized that this had happened. So, I am still wondering as to why this indefinite block was implemented. Personally, I took a break from Wikipedia during this entire period. I believe it was beneficial for me to take a step back and relax, and also understand everything from a bigger picture. When a person cools down, and when a situation calms, then everything returns to normal and understanding all around sets in. What was learned during this period of time is that I should have better studied the mechanisms of resolution here on Wikipedia. Instead of engaging in back and forth on the individual level, the better thing always to do is to invite the community for a consensus at the very least, and to involve proper authorities on Wikipedia to help resolve the matter. I have not involved the proper authorities for 2 reasons, and these have always been the reasons: 1) The admins are busy already. Compared to the size of the editing community, there is not a whole lot of admins. To increase their workload by providing them with repeated inquiries for actions against edtiors or article edits would be overwhelming. It is to be believed that with the amount of problematic edits or matters, even those that I have ran into, a admin notice could be launched every other moment to get them involved. It would be overwhelming to blow a matter out of proportions and bug admins about it. 2) I do not want to get editors in trouble. For me to involve an admin against a user is like calling the cops on a person in real life. With due respect, some of these editors seem like they sit on Wikipedia day and night around the clock, patrolling the articles dearest to them, or they add info that they then guard with their lives. I believe that when other editors swing by and challenge or edit such articles, they become abnormally stressed to unimaginable extents. If they then get reported to admins, God forbid, they might very well have a heart attack. Really, this can be a real matter. I do not want to create a situation in which such people are overstressed to these extents. One has to be very cold hearted to enjoy another person being pushed to their brink. So these are the two reasons why I never involved admins. That is why it is I who has been reported to admins, never the other way around. Though, It could have always been myself to lodge the report first. I have always cited the evidence for the others' wrongdoing.

I have learned that when it is truly necessary, to start using the mechanisms of resolutions without hesitation. Because since I did not, It is I who has had to get the short end of the stick here. For example, the block.

I have also came to understand that I need to better learn Wikipedia. Even with about 1300 edits, I am still new to how to use this website. For example, I do not know how to archive my talk page that is littered with the most oldest discussions, warnings, inquiries etc. They are from years ago. It was these old discussions being referenced for the reasons for my reprimand. I asked a few users and admins if they can show me how to archive them, but I never got a response. I looked online, but the information is vague on how to perform an archive function. I am still learning it. Also, I wish that I knew how to show "diffs" in discussions and admin noticeboards because this would immediately provide evidence to support my case in a matter. Because I have not shown these "diffs" I believe that admins have always disregarded my position. The admins do not delve into the matter to see what is actually happening or what the dispute is about, they rather go off the commentary or the "diffs" the opposition shows which makes it easy for the admin to click on and then conclude the matter in favor of their side. The admin cannot be blamed here since I should have figured how to show the "diffs" for them to easily click on. Its a matter of expediency for the admins to resolve a matter, rather than investigate the actual case matter. This is the case in my situation.

To conclude this request, I have always followed the Wikipedia rules, except for the 3rr. I have always added information that is backed with citations, sources, and links, whether internal or external to Wikipedia. I ask any admin to investigate this, and it is guaranteed that they will come to this conclusion. Researching WP in these few days, I have learned that WP is more about verifiability, rather than truth. It is there on a WP article that states this. This is fine because the information I have added is always verifiable. It is never fringe, never made up, never personal. It is cited, sourced, and linked. The rule that I am guilty of breaking has been the 3RR which I just learned about. This is the back and forth with an editor. It is better to follow the formal mechanisms of resolution rather than trying to reason with an editor on an individual basis. There is no weight to it as I have to come to learn.

In summary: I am learning more about Wikipedia. I have learned that it is better to use the formal mechanisms of resolutions on WP rather than try to resolve the matter on an individual basis with an editor when it is going back and forth. I was given a block for the reason of having a 'battle ground mentality'. Well, I have learned how WP now formally works and will use it formally, with formally resolving matters. I will continue to improve wikipedia through edits as I have done through the over 1300 edits. I believe it is necessary to show back up to Wikipedia now as well since I am being accused by a user of operating an IP account to edit an article. This could not be further from the truth. I ask that this be checked to prove my innocence. Even when I am not active on WP and am suspended, such a user would try to pin more blame on myself. It is better to be unsuspended, and to be present so that I could also defend myself in these kind of situations.

P.S. I ask that any administrator of wikipedia follow me around. Let he or she watch exactly what I do on this website. I urge them to so that they may see that what I do is never to disrupt WP, break its rules, or implement any information that is false, unverifable, and out of the blue sky. I have always asked for this. This way also, those who violate WP rules can also be immediately seen on the articles and be reprimanded as necessary, even myself if I ever did break a rule. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please rewrite this to be more concise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (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.

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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am requesting an unblock on my account. The reason is because I have now been away from wikipedia for a period of time and had the chance to take a step back and understand the matter overall. My 72 hour ban came with the reason that I was being disruptive and violating 3RR. I understand now that instead of going in a back and forth with an editor on an individual basis, it is best to use the formal mechanisms of resolutions here on Wikipedia. I did not want to involve admins because that is similar to calling the cops on someone in real life, but, if the situation requires it, it would be best to involve them instead of engaging on an individual basis. I have also had the chance to study Wikipedia rules more and learn more tools in order to be formal and well oriented with the website. With over 1300 edits and being here for 2 years, I was still not oriented with the website. Though, learning it will surely. I have always added information with citations, sources, and links, whether internal or external to Wikipedia to always ensure the info is verifiable as per WP policies. I will continue to follow WP policies, including now 3RR rules. I am not sure why the indefinite block came right after the 72 hour ban expired, it was not explained. But it is all in the past now. It is time to move forward into the future with peace, stability, and tranquility. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 3:20 pm, 8 June 2022, Wednesday (2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but as you do not understand why you were blocked, I cannot unblock you. Please review the discussion that led to your block. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive305#WatanWatan2020. Please describe what you did to merit yet another block and what you would do differently. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2022 (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.

Hello. I have made an unblock request. It has been 4 days and there is no response. I made the request more concise after it was asked to be so. All of that is visible above.

When will the request be dealt with? I am asking this way because I cannot edit talk pages to ask anywhere else. Thanks WatanWatan2020 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have submitted an unblock request that has now been pending for 4 days. When will it be dealt with? I made the unblock request concise as it was asked. That is all visible above. There is no other way for me to inform admin of this matter as editing permission is blocked as well. Therefore, this is the only available way. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, have a look at Category:Requests for unblock. Observe that there is a backlog. There are more than 50 requests in line in front of you. Please be patient. Second, looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive305#WatanWatan2020, I see strong basis to indef block you. Looking at your talk page here, I see more than a dozen warnings regarding your editing here. A cursory review seems to show you haven't learned any lessons from any of this, and have just continued to plow ahead with past behaviors. I have low confidence you've learned from any of this. Wikipedia is not a bunch of people all acting independent of one another. We have to work together. Your approach seems to be opposite of that. Evaluate yourself; do you really believe you can operate in concert with other people on this project or do you feel as though you would find that difficult? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::This is an Arbitration enforcement block appeal. per Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Arbitration_enforcement_blocks--

"To request that such a block be lifted, you may:

• Address your appeal to the blocking administrator either on your talk page or by email (using the "Email this user" function on their talk page).
• Address your appeal to either
  administrators' noticeboard by using the {{unblock}} template, asking the reviewing administrator to initiate a community discussion. You should prepare the appeal in the form provided by the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal
  }} on your talk page, below the unblock request, so that the reviewing administrator may simply copy it to the appropriate community forum.
• Address your appeal to the Arbitration Committee by sending an email to Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org)."

It's only been three months, it might need to be six before you can appeal. Please review the discussion that led to your block. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive305#WatanWatan2020. What User:Hammersoft said. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Operation Claw Lock (August 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Davisonio was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Operation Claw-Lock instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Operation Claw Lock and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Craig Davison (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WatanWatan2020! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Craig Davison (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Operation Claw Lock

request

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

talk) 08:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your draft article, Draft:Operation Claw Lock

Hello, WatanWatan2020. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Operation Claw Lock

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am requesting the unblocking of my account. Per heeding to the last communication on my talk page that I should take a 6 months break from wikipedia, this has been completed. That recommendation was dated in August of 2022. And, at that time, I was already away from wikipedia for 3 months. So, it has almost been a year… In regards to wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am more aware now of how situations can be handled. Whether I am in the right, or wrong, … procedures should be followed accurately. Such an approach takes patience and understanding. With being away from Wikipedia for this much time, one realizes the bigger picture. I realize, better now, how Wikipedia works and how solutions can be achieved. Therefore, and as stated earlier, I am asking for the unblocking of my account. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on your prior behaviour and in particular, your comments below and your unwillingness to accept a topic ban, I believe it would be inappropriate to unblock you at this time. You are free to make a new unblock request and another admin will review it. Yamla (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2023 (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.

In the arbitration noticeboard, the result was that you had a "long history of ignoring consensus, misrepresenting sources and edit warring across multiple topic areas" and that a topic ban and an indefinite block were necessary. You are now asking that the block be lifted. What topic ban are you willing to abide by, if unblocked? Based on my investigation, it looks like that'd have to be "the Arab world, Afghanistan, Iranian topics, and air forces", broadly construed, at the absolute minimum and I'm not at all sure that would be sufficient. So, what do you think would be sufficient to convince us to unblock you? What would you write about instead? --Yamla (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are bringing up the past, as you are doing now, then I can point to the same statements that I had made back then. In those statements, I asked if any admin or arbitrator could point out my misrepresentation of sources … and there was none. No investigations were conducted on the matter. In fact, after my ban was implemented, the very same information that was easily noticeable to be incorrect, was re-implemented. It went so far as to delete sources that supported accurate information that was implemented… In regards to your response, I find it very unfortunate. That I heeded to the long break from wikipedia, that i have stated in my previous unblock requests that I am, now, aware of how to conduct and resolve disputes on wikipedia … its starting to seem that such roadblocks to the unblocking of my account is intentional so that I can remain blocked permanently, rather than you provide an honest opportunity to prove to the Wikipedia community that I will abide by Wikipedia policies by unblocking me and allowing me to contribute. On top of this, you are listing topics that I cannot involve myself in. How is that fair? Have you provided the opportunity for me to prove that I will not conduct mistakes in those topics after almost a year? It would be honest, and fair, on your part to unblock me and allow me to contribute to wikipedia in all topics like any free WP contributor may… and that if in the future i was in violation, I can be reprimanded again. Mind you again that this is almost a year that I have not been on wikipedia, and I have it made it clear that I am aware of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines better. This is not a situation in which I am coming back after a days to request an unblocking when disputes are still fresh. This is almost a year later. All of those disputes are long gone and buried. And I am welcoming you, like I have welcomed other admins in the past, to follow me around on WP to see what I edit or add. I have always made this offer. And this offer still stands as I strongly believe that what I edited or added was well within WP guidelines and requirements and will be in the future. So, to reiterate the earlier point, I firmly believe it is logical to unblock me and allow me to contribute to WP. There should be no topic bans. This is a fresh start with a fresh mindset. Bringing up the past, as you have, is quite unfair and counter productive to resolving this matter of unblocking my account. I have stated, clearly, that I understand my mistakes, have made the pledge to not repeat them, and to contribute to WP the best I could. There is nothing more a human can say, or prove in my position any further than this. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Febuary 2023

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).

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am requesting the unblocking of my account. Per heeding to the last communication on my talk page that I should take a 6 months break from wikipedia, this has been completed. That recommendation was dated in August of 2022. And, at that time, I was already away from wikipedia for 3 months. So, it has almost been a year… In regards to wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am more aware now of how situations can be handled. Whether I am in the right, or wrong, … procedures should be followed accurately. Such an approach takes patience and understanding. With being away from Wikipedia for this much time, one realizes the bigger picture. I realize, better now, how Wikipedia works and how solutions can be achieved. Therefore, and as stated earlier, I am asking for the unblocking of my account. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In reading your reasoning above, I strongly oppose to an unblock at this time, especially with no topic bans. The amount of disruption caused would warrant a topic ban, regardless of how you feel you should be treated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2023 (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.