W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: غوّاص العلم

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!


<div class="skin-invert" style="width: 99%; color: #111; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.35); border-radius: 2px;">
<div style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; background: #fff; width: 100%; padding-bottom:18px;">
<div style="font-size: 140%; margin-top: 24px;margin-left: 16px; margin-right: 16px; font-family: 'Linux Libertine',Georgia,Times,serif; line-height: 1.2em;">right|86px|class=skin-invert ↗
Hello, غوّاص العلم!</div>
<div style="font-size: 120%; padding-top: 0px; margin-left: 16px; font-family: 'Linux Libertine',Georgia,Times,serif; line-height:1.2em; color: #666; ">
I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
</div></div>

<div style="vertical-align:middle; color: black; background-color:#fff">
<div style="display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; background-color:#e7e7e7; padding: 10px; padding-left: 20px; ">
<div style="flex: 1 1 300px;">
<div style="font-size: 18px; font-family: 'Linux Libertine',Georgia,Times,serif; line-height:1.2em; font-weight:normal;">51px|alt=|link= ↗ Getting Started</div>
<div style="padding-left: 56px; margin-right: 50px; margin-top: -15px;">

'''Tutorial''' ↗<br/><small>Learn everything you need to know to get started.</small>
{{center|Introduction to contributing ↗}}
{{columns-list|colwidth=15em|
}}
----
'''The Teahouse''' ↗<br/><small>Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.</small>
----
'''The Task Center''' ↗<br/><small>Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help. Has a list of maintenance tasks you can do.</small>
</div>
</div>

<div style="flex: 1 1 300px;">
<div style="font-size: 18px; font-family: 'Linux Libertine',Georgia,Times,serif; line-height:1.2em; font-weight:normal;">51px|alt=|link= ↗Tips</div>
<div style="padding-left: 56px; margin-top: -15px; padding-right: 28px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 10px; padding-left: 20px; ">
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="font-size: 110%; padding-top: 0px; font-family: 'Linux Libertine',Georgia,Times,serif; line-height:1.2em; "><span style="font-size: 18px; color: #666; "></span>

Happy editing! Cheers, <span style="color: red">Tank</span><span style="color: darkgreen">ish</span><span style="color: blue">guy</span> ↗ <span style="color: #666; ">12:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)</span>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<!--This message is from Template:Welcoming-->
:Thank you very much!!
:English Wikipedia has been very welcoming, I thank you for being part of this hospitable environment.
:I did not know about the Teahouse, I'm sure I will make use of it. I wonder if such a thing also exists in Arabic Wikipedia.
:Thanks again!
:The Diver (Ghawwas) غوّاص العلم (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::Teahouses are on almost all wikis, especially bigger ones, so possibly. <span style="color: red">Tank</span><span style="color: darkgreen">ish</span><span style="color: blue">guy</span> ↗ 13:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, i may recommend Recent changes patrol ↗. <span style="color: red">Tank</span><span style="color: darkgreen">ish</span><span style="color: blue">guy</span> ↗ 13:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you! I will check it out. I am currently playing around with trying to improve an article ↗ that was recently tagged for "Encyclopedic Tone" and "Verification". I'm trying to see if I can get it to a level where it is deemed appropriate to remove those tags :) غوّاص العلم (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! I believe that your work will be great on the article! <span style="color: red">Tank</span><span style="color: darkgreen">ish</span><span style="color: blue">guy</span> ↗ 14:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Trivial information



So I removed part of your edit to Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani ↗, namely the line "As a result, the 2021 election stands as the only time in Qatari history that members of the assembly were chosen by vote.", this line here is what I'd consider trivial as it is a fun fact but doesn't really add much to understanding Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mind you what one considers to constitute trivial information varies from editor to editor. In this case the removal of content would probably be more justified as being off topic as this information fits far better in Politics of Qatar ↗. I normally wouldn't have explained the rational behind an edit of mine in such detail but you have expressed your desire to learn how things work on enwiki. DervotNum4 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for the explanation! I genuinely appreciate it. And the removal totally makes sense to me with this explanation. If you have it in you to give me more explanations like these in the future I'd very much appreciate it. غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The Diver (Ghawwas)



Hello!<br>
I recommend that you change your signature from غوّاص العلم (talk) to The Diver (talk) or Ghawwas (talk) instead of having to manually type "The Diver (Ghawwas)" at the end of every message. See Wikipedia:Signatures ↗ for steps on how to do that <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em"><span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span> ↗&nbsp;<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span> (<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>)</span> 13:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! I will consider making a change. غوّاص العلم (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:I finally did it lol.
:Thanks again, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
::Hmm I wonder why the talk page link doesn't work here though. It did work on my last comment here ↗. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from :Al Jazeera Media Network ↗ into another page, for example in this edit where you copied citations ↗. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing ↗ requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).{{pb}} When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary ↗ at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking ↗ to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>page name ↗</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.{{pb}} Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-copying --><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 21:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for notifying me, I wasn't aware!
:When copying stuff I wrote into multiple articles it's easy to attribute to myself, but is there any remotely easy way to find out which contributor a specific quote comes from? Otherwise I guess one must stick to just noting that it's from a specific article. And in the case of the specific edit you linked to here, I should have specified that it's from Al Jazeera Media Network ↗, rather than writing "main article", which is bad attribution. Is that right? غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
::Okay, I see now that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗ addresses my points, should have read it first haha. My bad, and thanks again for notifying me and directing me there. غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Media Network , Al Jazeera English



Please slow down before making contested changes to multiple articles. You already have an open discussion on the talk page ↗, so continue working toward consensus there. Replicating disputed content across several articles is disruptive ↗. Cinaroot (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar


{| style="border:1px solid gray; background-color:#fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size:x-large; padding:0 0.5em 0; vertical-align:middle; height:1.1em;" |'''The Qatar Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align:middle; border-top:1px solid gray;" | Good work on Qatari topics! It's nice to see another active editor on the WP.
|} Elspamo4 (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you so much! :) It means a lot. You've made my entry into this hobby much nicer than it could have otherwise been <3 غوّاص العلم (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!


left|link= ↗
:::::'''Hi غوّاص العلم!''' We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
::::::* The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page ↗
::::::* The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge ↗
::::::* The Teahouse new editor help space ↗
::::::* Wikipedia Help pages ↗
{{Wikipedia:TWA/Navigation2}}
-- 15:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking you


On article talk pages we comment on (a) content and (b) edits. At :Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network#Discussion concerning Al Jazeera Media Network ↗ you wrote a draft "suggested lead". When other editors discuss sentences in that "suggested lead", they are not attacking you. Saying that a statement would need multiple reliable sources is not a personal attack. Nor is expressing a concern that the statement, whose only source is an obscure journal, may be a fringe point of view. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 09:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

:You indeed are not attacking me. You just compared the statement I made to a comparison between Starmer and Hitler, which I don't think is quite an attack, but perhaps close to it. I think that it would have been appropriate to bring some sources making the opposite point to make such a harsh comparison.
:The one who very much did attack me is Cinaroot. I would appreciate your involvement in that discussion, before saying "nobody is attacking" me. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry I did not realise that it was a statement you made. I had thought that you were just trying to summarise what sources said - your summary of a source that you cited was "while critics often view Al Jazeera Arabic as promoting Qatar's foreign policy". WP:NPOV ↗ says:
::*"All encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia ↗ must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV) ↗, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views ↗ that have been published by reliable sources ↗ on a topic."
::I thought that you were just doing that.

::My comment was that the point of view being summarised needed to have more citations, as evidence, so that we could evaluate whether it was a fringe point of view (because that is what it seems to be). I then gave an example of a fringe point of view. My reason for mentioning that particular fringe view, is that for the past week, Facebook's algorithms have been adding 45-second political videos to my feed along the lines that the Starmer government is establishing a totalitarian state. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 10:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know why "it seems to be" a fringe point of view. That's not even something Cinaroot was disagrees with, to my understanding.
:::Also I feel like you're sidestepping the more important issue. My impression is that ever since Cinaroot called you into the discussion ↗, you've dedicated ↗ quite ↗ a ↗ few ↗ edits to try and poke holes into my side of things while throwing around words like "shill", comparisons to Hitler, asking me to strikethrough me messages, and more. Meanwhile you are consistently avoiding addressing Cinaroot's side of things (other than one request that we both stick to discussing each article on its own talk page, followed by only calling on me to strikethrough my edits even though they were the one who started mixing the two).
:::In fact, it mirrors and complements very nicely with Cinaroot's own avoidance and ignoring of my points. How convenient that you were someone that they called into the discussion, for you to try and poke holes into me while completely avoiding engaging with the actually important discussion, which they are clearly losing. And then, when they attack me, you go in and try to gaslight me saying "no one is attacking you".
:::I gave you a clear opportunity to address Cinaroot's attack, and you completely ignore it again. What gives? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::::They do not need to make any comments or take sides on other editors if they don’t want to. You can discuss issues about me directly with me on my talk. Anyway - lets re-focus our energy on the articles Cinaroot (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Also i only tagged Toddy because they made edits here ↗ and here ↗
::::I think you are making too many assumptions here Cinaroot (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived



{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''غوّاص العلم'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Should this article exist?}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Should this article exist? ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}
<!-- KiranBOTmsgID:1326544704 --><!-- User:KiranBOT/Teahouse_archival_notification -->

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion



link=|alt=Information icon|25x25px ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 14:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL



{{strike | I apologize if I caused you distress. But please stay calm. I’m not trying to lynch you at the NPOV noticeboard. Let’s wait until more editors can give you feedback about your writing.}} <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 15:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

:More ridiculous gaslighting. You refuse to engage any of my points in the talk pages, instead going to some external forum I don't know shit about and editorializing around my supposed misdeeds. I'm tired of this. I can only hope that noticeboard has people who will see this situation for what it is User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!



Hello,

I just wanted to thank you for your concern over Al Jazeera. I have also been working through those pages and while I know we may not agree on everything it's nice to know other people are concerned about neutrality on that page. There is another page titled "Al jazeera controversies" that you also may be interested in--it has many of the same issues. Anyway happy editing and welcome to Wikipedia! Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! Yes, I've been going a little insane over there. I've mostly edited on matters related to Qatar, and until I touched AJ I've never faced anything near this kind of pile on and a complete ignoring of facts and reasonable protocols... It seems to me like people from both sides are treating it as some kind of political/ideological battleground unfortunately, whereas I just want to get the facts straight... User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
::Well the issue is--it is. Unfortunately a lot of Wikipedia has become this way--due to ideological polarization. Anyway I am learning Arabic (I'm not great) but: أهلاً و سهلاً! Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
:::أهلًا بك في أجمل لغة في العالم!
:::btw, the vast majority of Arabic scholars agree that the tanween fath (ً ) should be over the letter before the alif, not on the alif itself. Though the matter is apprently quite controversial on Arabic Wikipedia, as I learned the hard way, lol. In modern use many place the tanween as you did, but most experts agree that that is wrong, to my understanding.
:::Happy learning! It really is such a beautiful language. Though I may be biased lol. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you! It's been just a year--and your alphabet is beautiful but hard! Hahaha I appreciate the tips. I also would welcome television or media recommendations--as of now my listening is mostly from Al Jazeera Arabic (how funny is that). Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I adore the alphabet! Though I suppose it could be pretty challenging if you're not born to it haha.
:::::I assume you're studying MSA? If so, I would recommend historical series like Omar ↗ and Kingdoms of Fire ↗, classics like The Message ↗... The nice thing about shows in MSA is that they often also give you insights into religious and historical matters.
:::::Happy learning! I hope you develop your knowledge of our culture for understanding and nuance, and not for gotchas and the such... I've seen one too many such cases online of weaponized Dunning-Kruger by idiot Zionists and the such misrepresenting stuff and claiming that they understand what our whole civilization is all about.
:::::Happy learning and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2026



30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Al Jazeera Media Network ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''&mdash;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&mdash;whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time&mdash;counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash; if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.{{Break}}<s>''You are '''way''' over WP:3RR ↗ by now. Please stop reverting.''</s><!-- Template:uw-3rr --> SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:Good to know about the WP:3RR ↗ thing, thanks.
:However, just to be clear, I have tried extensively to use the talk page, and Cinaroot refuses and keeps essentially vandalizing. When they keep aggressively editing while explicitly refusing to explain themselves and engage in discussions ↗, am I supposed to let the essentially vandalize the article at some point?
:You can see here ↗ their removal of another desperate attempt by me to actually work cooperatively, as I have and do with others that I disagree with.
:And with regards to my reverts of the edits by this <bdi>Noamperetz10</bdi>, surely those wouldn't count against me as an edit war, right? Seeing as they are pretty obviously vandalism (or at the very least disruptive editing) by a new user. Not to mention they're from a user POV pushing against AJ, while Cinaroot is POV pushing for it, and I'm in the middle just trying to make a good article...
:Anyway thanks for the warning. I would appreciate advice on the things I asked here and in general. I've never faced anything near the hostility and lack of cooperation that this user has shown me, and I'm not sure how to continue dealing with it moving forward.
:Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> User:Bluethricecreamman <span style="font-size: 85%;">(Talk·Contribs ↗)</span> 18:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)


<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' '''indefinitely ↗''' from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 23:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:Uw-nothereblock -->
:The major concerns here are: your incivility ↗, aggressive editing, failure to assume good faith ↗, battleground behavior ↗, non-neutral editing ↗, and bludgeoning ↗. Your response to the ANI thread indicates to me that you are not presently able to effectively collaborate with other editors. I suggest you take some time to review relevant policies and guidelines relating to editor conduct and neutrality. A knee-jerk unblock request is likely to be declined. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 23:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for review



{{unblock reviewed|accept=Accepting unblock, per below. No conditions, but please take especial care around the topics and editors that were involved in the issues that led to this block. asilvering (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)|1=I don't believe that this is a knee-jerk request.
Two other users have argued against this measure: (1) ↗, (2) ↗, (3) ↗, (4) ↗.

I would like to continue contributing to the various fields I've contributed in before, mostly in WP:Qatar ↗. Before this incident started around one month ago, I've always collaborated very well with other editors, including amid disagreements. I don't think that an indefinite, site-wide block is appropriately preventative.

I accept being closely monitored for future signs of the things I stand accused of here. I would also understand being distanced from AJ-related articles until further notice, although I maintain that I have contributed a lot there (even if I fell to unacceptable behaviour at times), and that I still have a lot to contribute, if not now, then in the future once things calm down. If it is determined that I have lost it and need to be forced to take two weeks off of the site, I'd understand it. I want to be careful not to fall afoul of WP:NOTTHEM ↗ from the explanatory essay, but would also like to see more of a discussion on the circumstances of my "losing it" for the first time. This is not to excuse, but to at least partly explain.

An editor has opined ↗ that I've been the less problematic party to this conflict. Another one agrees ↗ that I've been stonewalled. An editor who has not been a fan of mine agrees ↗ that I had faced editors using sources to defend preferred phrasing without checking them, which substantially helps explain why I wrote so extensively in talk.

Regarding "non-neutral editing", I don't see any diffs provided on this that I could reply to. I have deeply engaged with sources and their content, and looked for collaboration and compromise many times throughout the process, even if some edits, especially earlier, were somewhat brash and inexperienced. I can provide many diffs if requested.

I can and will collaborate better in the future if allowed to, completely avoiding personal attacks, and taking it much slower on multiple changes and discussions at once on anything contentious. I also clearly need to learn how to write shorter when many arguments are brought against me at the same time, and will work on this.

'''2026.01.20 update:'''

Three more editors of various viewpoints have spoken out against this measure: (1) ↗, (2) ↗, (3) ↗.

I think that it is quite evident that while I have significantly struggled with some norms ↗ throughout this specific incident, I am very much here to build an encyclopedia. I will leave it at that unless and until an admin asks for more.

<span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC) }}

:{{talk page stalker}}
:I will say that I engaged in substantive dispute with this editor at Al Jazeera ↗ and WP:NPOV ↗ and while their behavior was not permissible (e.g. I have noted the bludgeoning in our discussion) I am a bit surprised to see this block, without considering alternative sanctions. A topic ban from Al Jazeera would have had a same effect, since the disruptive editing was contained to this topic. While the block was obviously within administrative discretion, I still believe that an alternative sanctions would be more efficacious. Katzrockso (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::غوّاص العلم, most of your editing Wikipedia seems to take place in Saudi office hours.<sup>time card ↗</sup> Are you editing on behalf of your employer?<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 14:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Thats rather weird way to ask for a COI declaration. If an editor is in another timezone that really is not an issue. User:Bluethricecreamman <span style="font-size: 85%;">(Talk·Contribs ↗)</span> 18:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::An editor who sticks to office hours is unusual.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 19:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, typically editors edit throughout the day. I randomly checked many active editors to confirm. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 20:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Is it? The vast majority of my editing is done while I'm slacking off from my job. My time card ↗ looks pretty dang similar (though I make it a point to avoid edits related to my work with a 10 foot pole) <span class="nowrap"><sup>''Laffy''</sup><span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>💬<small>(they/she ↗)</small></span> 21:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::You may look at my user page if you want to understand why my timezone is similar to a Saudi.... And if anything, if you think that I'm out to "get" Qatar on behalf of another country, you should accuse me of working for UAE or Israel at this time in history, not Saudi. At any rate, suggesting that I'm a paid Saudi troll seems like way worse casting of aspersions than I've done so far, but maybe I'm missing some nuance of policy.
:::To answer your "question": no. I hardly work, and if my "employer" knew what I'm doing, I'd be in quite a pickle. Part of my starting to edit on Wikipedia was as a way to deal with my unhealthy relationship with screentime, doing as much of this instead of incessant gaming and scrolling. A big part of that is also me trying really hard to limit the hours during which I'm having screen time. Hopefully, you will not see me stray from my current time patterns too much. Unless I am abroad, it would mean that I have backslided in my self-care efforts. And if you see me editing on a Friday, you can be especially happy for me. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::::In Wikipedia, casting aspersions ↗ is "where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehaviour without evidence". I asked you a question, pointing out that your edits seemed to take place in Saudi office hours, and included a link to a summary of the times of your edits ↗ as evidence. It is not just a matter of timezone, but also of which days are the weekend.
::::In general on Wikipedia, we comment on edits, and not on the editor's behaviour. But an editor should expect comments and questions about their behaviour at WP:ANI, WP:AE, and unblock requests.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 13:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

:'''To reviewing admins''' : غوّاص العلم casted aspersions against me and Bluethricecreamman ( filer of ANI) in their ANI post. They were told by BusterD - to keep their ANI post short - but this instruction was ignored. They are aware of casting aspersions and bludgeoning. I do not know why people are defending them - the amount of incivility is enough for a permanant block. The fact that they tried to discredit and attack Bluethricecreamman should be considered. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 04:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Cinaroot}}, you're involved ↗, {{tq|the amount of incivility is enough for a permanant block}} isn't for you to decide Kowal2701 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I didn’t make the decision. an administrator did. I am the affected party here, and as far as I can tell, all of the incivility was directed at me. I therefore have a say in this matter. Please stop defending them. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 23:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
:::If an administrator chooses to unblock them, so be it. However, they still have not apologized to me for their incivility. Civility is not something the community should have to teach. Please read their their reply when i apologized and try to make things right.
:::As far as I can tell, Toddy1, NotBartEhrman, and I are the editors who have interacted with them the most. These are their response in ANI
:::Toddy1 {{tq|The problem is not Cinaroot; everyone who dares to stand up to غوّاص العلم on Al Jazeera-related pages gets bashed by غوّاص العلم. }}
:::NotBartEhrman {{tq| Ghawwas's editing is very aggressive and has been hard to deal with, even though he is accepting feedback}} <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 23:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hoo boy. There's a lot more here than struggling with some norms. And there's something completely missing from this unblock request: an explanation of why it won't happen again. Let's say you avoid Al Jazeera entirely. You find some other article you believe to be thoroughly deficient on a topic you care quite a lot about. You start making changes, and this goes well for a little bit, but then some editors show up and disagree with you. One of them, in particular, starts stonewalling your edits. Now what? -- asilvering (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for commenting.
::I think that I've explained what would happen differently, but I will reiterate and clarify. I would not make multiple edits on different subjects in the article, and I would go much sooner to different sorts of content/dispute mediation. This would also prevent talk pages getting out of hand. Not to mention, most importantly, I would know better how to emotionally deal with unsubstantiated accusations, etc., and would avoid retaliation and escalation. Essentially, this is my first experience dealing with stonewalling, WP:OWN, aspersions cast at me, a pile-on with no substantial arguments, etc., and I've learned from it.
::(And by the way, just to be clear, this didn't even start as an "article [I] believe to be thoroughly deficient on a topic [I] care quite a lot about". It was just one more article in WP:Qatar for me, which I made a small change to. What was different was the way in which that change was reacted to, which led me to read more into the subject, and then make and suggest more edits, which again received a reaction which I have never seen before or since on any other subject I have dealt with on Wikipedia. That was the reason that I stayed around and got into that fight to begin with. Just to be clear, it's not that it was the first time I got reverted or had a dispute, it was just the first time that it looked like this.)
::I think that I've explained why my response would be far better in the future, even if faced with problematic behaviour. I'd be happy to answer any other question or concern.
::Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Alright. This is your first block, and, I think, the first time you've gotten into trouble of any kind before, so I think we can lift this. @voorts? -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
::::No objection. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 18:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you, I am very happy to hear this. I will make sure to take this incident as a big lesson going forward. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

advice



i'm sorry if i caused you WP:WIKISTRESS ↗. if you read the thread, you will see i agree with busterD here ↗ that you seem a fairly new editor, and that contrition and a promise to do better would go a mile.

apologies if I WP:BITE ↗ too hard, but i saw that other warnings had gone unheeded. But perhaps think of agreeing to stop WP:BLUDGEON ↗, and to accept some fault, and an admin would probably be more likely to accept your unblock request. I'm unfollowing the talk page, apologies for wikistress, and do sincerely hope you are back soon. User:Bluethricecreamman <span style="font-size: 85%;">(Talk·Contribs ↗)</span> 18:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

:I appreciate your sincere hope that I'm back soon.
:With regards to your advice, I believe that I've quite explicitly taken responsibility for the things I've done wrong, and promised to do better. Do you think that there is some aspect of this which I have not yet taken enough responsibility for, or that I did not yet promise to do better on with enough specificity? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sea of Blue


If you place a series of links all together it looks like one link (e.g. Three ↗ more ↗ editors ↗), even though it is not. You have done this several times, and it makes it hard for reviewing editors to spot. The phenomenon is described at :MOS:SEAOFBLUE ↗.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 11:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. I have tried to avoid this phenomenon in articles, but figured that in this kind of meta environment it's not really an issue, since any interested editor mousing over the link can immediately see this. And especially in this context, when I say "three more editors". Do you think that I should edit it regardless, like put a colon then 1 2 3 with links to the comments? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, I think you should edit it urgently. When you did it at #Nobody is attacking you ↗ on 11 December I only discovered that "dedicated quite a few edits" contained five separate wikilinks on 6 January! It is just not something that one expects to happen.

::Also, if I were you, I would move the signature for your unblock request so that it is inside the template. i.e. from
:::<nowiki><span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>}} User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)</nowiki>
::to
:::<nowiki><span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC) }}</nowiki>
::<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 14:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Alright, I'll do that. Thanks again. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I tried to implement your suggestions, let me know if you have any others. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::I suppose I will also implement it on the first instance in the original request. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::That is much easier to read (i.e. it is intuitive).<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 15:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

In this old version of the page ↗ the link from Three worked. Now it does not. Since I do not understand how the link worked, I cannot advise you on what to do.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 18:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know. Something about the hyperlink was broken, I'm not fully used to how it works in source mode, which I'm forced to use in this context. I fixed it by re-linking it.
:Thanks again. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
::I only ever use source mode.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">-- Toddy1 (talk)</span> 08:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I guess a lot of people here are much more programming and computer-geek oriented than I am. I appreciate any help on those fronts, thanks. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks



You are genuinely one of the few replies that have kept me fucking sane throughout this entire shitshow. English language wikipedia is an unmitigated trainwreck of people microaggressing and orientalising their way through every topic like wildfire, and then daring to act offended when you say something about it. Seeing such a huge chunk of English language admins mindlessly support such blatant racist drivel (and some of them quietly backtracking without so much as an apology for treating me like a criminal for DARING to question an admin's tone) has made me reconsider whether this place is even worth it in the first place. I think in the future I might slowly distance myself from EnWiki and perhaps move on to a different language wiki (please god tell me ArWiki isn't like this lmao). Regardless of what I choose, I wish to thank you for standing up for me and for being an oasis of reason in this orientalist desert. I have read your remarks on my behaviour as well, and will take them into consideration. Although I share your disillusionment with EnWiki, ironically enough, your presence here has been a significant boon in my opinion. Thank you. Poundthiswriter (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:I am very glad to hear that my words have given you some respite. I not only empathize with you, I also sympathize. I was permabanned from EnWiki for a couple of weeks because, as I see it, I got pissed off at a bunch of people dogpiling on me and gaslighting me, and then dared to write too many words about the situation after a complaint was opened against me. I have many more words for it, but all in all I think that it was a very skewed and unjust process, and seeing your situation is giving me yet more reason to mistrust the station of admins.
:I'm also glad to hear that you will be taking my remarks for you into consideration. Genuinely, I think that the policies of assuming good faith and being almost clinically respectful are probably for the best, at the end of the day. That even when people are being absolutely awful we should do our best to answer in the most technical and respectful language, trying to stick to the matter at hand, etc. While definitely not a one-to-one conversion, I think that there are perhaps even some life lessons in that as well.
:With regards to ArWiki, I'm afraid that I'm no bearer of good news haha... I had actually started over there and moved over here, because I found here to be far more hospitable and friendly at first. ArWiki is, sadly, a far less open endeavour than EnWiki in terms of basic policy. You can't even actually publish edits at first, every single edit you make has to be approved before it is published to the article proper, and getting to the station where your edits don't have to be approved isn't even automatic, you have to submit a request. Beyond this, my short experience there was quite negative overall, and here at first it felt wonderful how welcoming and helpful people were. I hope to get back to ArWiki one day though, and maybe get a better lease on it.
:Good luck and good tidings, friend. My advice, if you want it, is to try and be more clinical, technical, polite, kind, and assuming good faith in writing even if you have suspicions in your heart, even in the face of a distinct lack of all of the above. We are not in physical danger here, and can afford to suffer indignity with dignity, which is actually more likely to get us somewhere then if we were to react in a more naturally human way. And all of this doesn't mean suppressing slang or dialect btw, in my opinion.
:Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::I feel compelled to thank you User:غوّاص العلم, for making pithy but brief comments in the thread under discussion. Your willingness to keep your comments tight and on point actually changed the course of the thread and improved the chance User:Poundthiswriter's comments were properly heard. WP:BOLD encourages us to be direct. Your willingness to internalize good faith feedback while maintaining BOLD is inspiring to an old timer like myself. If either of you get into a fix, ping me. I may choose not to weigh in on the merits, but I'm always glad to help fresh wikpedians calibrate with community. BusterD (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much! I appreciate this feedback greatly. I had somehow missed this message until now.
:::Thanks again, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{tq|1=(please god tell me ArWiki isn't like this lmao)}}<br>@Poundthiswriter the admins in the ar-wiki are worse than this. Just last month an ar-wiki admin got banned for committing cybercrimes and sexual abuse ↗ <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em"><span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span> ↗&nbsp;<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span> (<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>)</span> 09:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::Holy fuck. I guess I haven't been missing much good having not returned there in a while...
::Why did Aws in the comments there make it seem like it might be a matter of differences of opinion between the sides? Are there actually differences of opinion between the involved sides? Is it more internal and interpersonal grievances, differences on how ArWiki should look like, and/or external ideological/political differences? غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I have no idea what they were thinking about. Either ways Aws was not long ago WP:HOUNDING ↗ me in the ar-wiki thinking that I was a newbie on Wikipedia or something. Apparently there is no policy against hounding on the ar-wiki and I cant really do anything about it <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em"><span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span> ↗&nbsp;<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span> (<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>)</span> 09:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Bro what a mahzala... I suppose we must just be patient and persevere. I laud you for still giving it an effort over there.
::::Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

March 2026


<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing from certain pages (:Al Jazeera Media Network ↗) for a period of '''6 months''' for repeating the issues that led to the previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;asilvering (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-pblock -->

Disambiguation link notification for March 4



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>
:Natural gas in Qatar ↗
::added a link pointing to Bloomberg ↗
:Qatar ↗
::added a link pointing to Bloomberg ↗
:QatarEnergy ↗
::added a link pointing to Bloomberg ↗

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

:Fixed :) غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ''' post-1978 Iranian politics''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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

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

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics <em>procedures</em>, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 23:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'm new to contentious topics, technically, though I think that Al Jazeera should probably count... If you ever see me editing in a way which you think should be better, I would very much appreciate you letting me know.
:Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Advice



Hi Ghawwas, I haven't read up on your dispute with Cinaroot, and am not going to say who is right or wrong, but I'd recommend leaving it alone. See User:Theleekycauldron/Some disputes aren't worth it#When to walk away, particularly {{tq|The best answer I have is eventualism ↗: the project rights itself at some point down the road. Bullies leave, either on good terms or not; the right answer comes through with enough discussion from cooler heads. These things will probably happen with or without your involvement. It might be a short-term loss to walk away, but over time, the track record buildup forces a reckoning – the arc of the project is long, but it bends against unblockables ↗.}} If there are problems with Cinaroot's editing, it'll come up again elsewhere, and eventually be dealt with no matter what you do (seems like thin ice ↗). When an administrator tells you to walk away, ''you need to walk away''. Just avoid them, and avoid Al Jazeera topics. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 11:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for reaching out with advice unprompted. That is a quality that I very much appreciate in a person.
:My most recent message ↗ to asilvering, if that is what you are referring to, and the ones that precede it, are primarily about myself, not about Cinaroot. I do want the reasons for the sanction against me to be clearly explained and discussed. While, admittedly, I do currently tend to think that a genuine explanation would lead to a conclusion that the sanction against me is not based on a good analysis of actual occurrences and policies, I am also very much open to the possibility that there are some things that I have genuinely misunderstood. I have no problem with acknowledging and admitting mistakes, as I did last time I was sanctioned. I believe it to be one of the most important things a person can do.
:For now, so long as my sanction is ongoing, I have avoided that user and Al Jazeera topics, as you recommend. But I think that asking the sanctioning admin for more of an insight into the process should, within reason, not be discouraged. I hope that my requests are seen as being in faith as good as they are being made with.
:Oddly enough, I actually find the anti-Cinaroot comment ↗ that you linked here to be inappropriate in the context that it was given, and find myself in some significant agreement with Sean.hoyland's comment ↗, with the caveat that my experience is not directly with that specific topic area (although perhaps AJ should be included in it, because in practice it seems like for a lot of people that is their main perspective coming into it). I agree with hoyland's general observation about admins acting seemingly arbitrarily, but also about that specific case. Cinaroot made a somewhat overzealous report on suspicious activity, which didn't even seem, to me at least, to be motivated by their particular perspective. If they indeed shouldn't be in that topic area, I would guess that it has very little to do with that specific thread, and more to do with what some admins have experienced from them elsewhere. If admin comments were about the matter at hand, they could just explain the mistakes made, and end it there. If they wanted to bring in previous behaviour to make something more of it, they should have explicitly done so. But that pithy comment that you linked seems, to me, emblematic of the same kind of vibes-based arbitrary admin behaviour that I think that I have been suffering from.
:(And if anything, btw, what I find to be weirdest from Cinaroot in that thread is admitting to having an [apparently] undisclosed alt account where they "started editing Wikipedia 16-17 years ago ↗", especially since in 2024, in trying to avoid sanctions, they claimed to be "a new editor ↗" that "started editing couple of months ago ↗". That is not what we're here for, but reading that part of the discussion was just a damn doozy.)
:I was not familiar with the unblockables ↗ essay. It was a good read, thank you. Same for the some disputes aren't worth it essay. Insightful and illuminating stuff. I'm of the belief that these "arcs" that we speak of don't simply bend, but rather are bent, by cumulative effort. In this instance, to be clear, I'm not trying to, nor do I think that I have the ability to, "fix the whole system". I'm also not focused on trying to make a "bully" "leave". Mostly, I'm trying to get a better understanding of why I was blocked at this time, and, possibly, if it seems appropriate, have that block overturned. I also allow myself to hope that it could have some cumulative contribution to developing a collective understanding that admin actions on enWiki should become better explained and more systematic in general, but I'm not trying to make a crusade of it.
:If, at any point, though, including at this point, you ever think that I'm doing myself and/or the project more harm than good with a certain action or undertaking, I would very much appreciate it if you were willing to tell me so (again). I promise to give it my attention and attempt to do some genuine reflection on it. Especially if you ever think that I'm acting anything like one of those "bullies" myself.
:Pardon my long-windedness. It is a known flaw. I hope that it is in not too bad a taste on my own talk page.
:Many thanks, and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::@Asilvering Can an interaction ban be placed on Ghawwas preventing them from engaging with me? Two way ban - if they also wants it. I do not want to interact with this user. I have been doing just that as much as possible. All their complaints against me were already raised in the ANI. But, they got blocked twice. But they keep coming at me here and on your talk page.
::Comments against me on this thread are very concerning. Yes - I had another account which I barely edited over the years. I started this account - because my name is on the other account. In this thread ↗ - when I say {{tq|Yes, I started editing a couple of months ago.}} - I meant on WP:CT ↗ as i was responding to a 1RR violation on a CT. It’s funny - how they are assuming bad faith against me - when they have accused me of bad faith against them.
::Either way - this cannot keep happening. Ghawwas please stop and move on. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> 🐈Cinaroot </span> &nbsp; 06:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm not "coming at you" on asilvering's talk page. I'm mostly focused on discussing my own behaviour, which, for obvious reasons, is intimately tied with yourself, because that is the only context in which I've had wiki-issues.
:::Here, too, if you notice, after someone drew my attention to another incident involving you, I actually started with, and dedicated more space to, defending you against the attack that you were subject to over there. You are taking issue with my addition between parentheses of what I did find odd in reading that discussion, '''in a reply on my own talk page to an uninvolved non-admin, after noting that I think that the anti-you comment that they linked to was inappropriate'''. I'm trying to figure out how things work here, and when that case was brought to my attention, I was giving my opinion on where I thought that they were being unfair towards you, and what raised my own eyebrow. This is an opportunity for Kowal to tell me why my perspective on these issues might be misguided.
:::Instead of pouncing on me both on asilvering's talk page and on my own, why not let me work through the process of getting advice from people? If they think that I'm being unreasonable in any way and at any point, they can, and in fact have been asked to, do so.
:::Please let me try and understand the situation with some other people. At this point, if you think that I'm crossing a line in trying to figure things out, please either open a new topic on my talk page to explain your grievances to me (i promise to try and reflect on it honestly), or just open a formal complaint wherever appropriate.
:::Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@Cinaroot, I can't ban either one of you as a unilateral action. If you both mutually agree to a formal two-way iban, I can record it for you. But I promise you really, really do not want to go down that road. Interaction bans are really hard on editors, and so often lead to full blocks and bans. For your own sakes I strongly advise against it. I would instead advise that you both ''act like'' you have a mutual iban, at least for the next while (where "while" is measured in "months" not "days"). Don't interact with each other or each other's edits, don't talk about each other, etc. Give each other a rest. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Seems like they are going to take a break per their user page.
::::'''Ghawwas''', please do not reply to anyone on this matter once you are back. Just forget about it. At this point, so many people have explained to you what’s wrong. If you keep arguing, you are going to turn the community further against you. You still have support from other editors for your other contributions in WP:QATAR - please focus on that. I’m sure - we will not have any more problems. Wikipedia is not your life or mine. If either of us gets banned, life will go on, and so will Wikipedia. No one is going to care six months from now that you were blocked.
::::I’m agreeing to an informal interaction ban for 6 months, provided you no longer talk about me and create conflicts on Al-jazeera. You do not need to reply to this proposal.
::::'''I recommend everyone not to reply to this matter - it will only add fuel to the fire.''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> 🐈Cinaroot </span> &nbsp; 00:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::Cinaroot said that they started editing 16-17 years ago and had not even made 500 edits on the account that they said that they had. I find your implication that Cinaroot is lying to be very dishonest and in bad faith. Wikipedia is a very different place now than it was 16-17 years ago. If Cinaroot had restarted editing after a long hiatus, considering both that they would have gotten rusty and that Wikipedia itself has changed quite a bit, would they not practically been a new user? What if, at that moment, they did forget that they had another account? It's not impossible to forget that you made a couple edits on a website a decade or more ago, and then remember it again. You imply this without much evidence. What makes this comment even worse is that you yourself note {{tq|[t]hat is not what we're here for}}.<br/>If you appreciate unprompted advice then please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ↗. I respectfully recommend this to you only after seeing your questions at User talk:asilvering#Please help me understand and trying to help you at Cinaroot's talkpage, when you had questions about the Al Jazeera article. '''<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>''', EasternShah 19:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::I wholeheartedly agree with User:Kowal2701's message about what we perceive as "great wrongs" eventually being rectified with time. I understand feeling like a certain topic is totally misrepresented on Wikipedia; we all do. And I know you're not trying to launch a "crusade" as you put it, but in all fairness and honesty, there are certain topics (like Al Jazeera) that you seem to be ''overly'' invested in, or at least that's how it seems from the tens of thousands of words you've written regarding it. I'm not criticizing that since I also suffer from the same long-windedness affliction, but to others, it comes off as being way too invested (possible COI or encroaching personal opinions), and they may perceive it as "stonewalling". I think you have great potential as an editor, especially with all your work on WP:Qatar ↗ topics thus far - you always use reliable references and professional prose. My final opinion: keep editing as you have been on non-controversial topics (seriously, you've done great work for articles such as Human rights in Qatar ↗, Iran–Qatar relations ↗ and Qatari Arabic ↗), but when it comes to controversial topics or articles with many eyes on it (Al Jazeera or Qatar Airways), try to tread lightly, rely on the talk page and be extremely succinct (I know this might be hard but most editors hate nothing more than having to read (and refute) a wall of text). Let the reliable sources do the talking for you, and if that fails then get a third opinion. Definitely hope to see you back soon since I think you're a great person and a net positive editor, despite the disputes. Take care friend. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@Elspamo4 Thank you, I appreciate it a lot <3
:::I think my main lesson for now is that editing things about my own country that people see through the prism of Israel v Palestine simply isn't worth it, and that building a decent encyclopedia on those things is not really possible here at the moment. It's a shame, because I think that understanding Al Jazeera is such an important aspect of understanding this country and its ruling elites. But I will simply keep a ten foot pole between myself and those subjects for now, and keep editing on subjects which are not an ideological battleground.
:::Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents



link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--><nowiki> ~~~~</nowiki> Mr.User200 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

:Bro, what? Way to jump the gun. You need to learn what "no reason" means. If you have an issue with any editing I do, you can talk to me about it here, raise it in the article talk page, whatever. Literally none of what you mentioned there is of any consequence. Relax a little and use talk pages, I'm not your enemy in any way. غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qatar Airways ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travel Weekly ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abdullah bin Nasser Al Thani (businessman) ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Periódico ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)