User talk:EasternShah

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles the Balkans or Eastern Europe the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people COVID-19, broadly construed the Arab–Israeli conflict post-1978 Iranian politics He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 5 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

I am open to collaborators, I will be attempting to get these articles to featured list status (though some do not meet the length requirement) and the topic as a whole to featured topic. You are encouraged to work on these articles yourself and nominate them. I will review those and you can leave me a talk page message to solicit a review.

edit | discuss

List of World Heritage Sites in Arab States

20 articles

Algeria (mostly ready)

Bahrain (ready, ask Tone to nom)

Egypt

Iraq (not ready)

Jordan (nom'd)

Kuwait (not ready)

Lebanon (not ready)

Libya (nom'd)

Mauritania (not ready)

Morocco

Oman

Palestine

Qatar (minor work)

Saudi Arabia (ai-gen'd, needs rephrasing, expansion)

Sudan

Syria (not ready)

Tunisia

United Arab Emirates (needs work)

Yemen

Glad to have you back and editing again. Zalaraz (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. User:Easternsahara 00:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 21:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

woot! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1, nice to see you back! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, I look forward to seeing your work continue. -- Reconrabbit 11:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This editor doesn't seem to be able to learn. Valereee (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i do not have a topic ban from "other topics related to Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs." per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Administrators permitted to topic ban from a wider area. Per the AE filed on me, I am banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Editors counselled I can edit in the "same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious". I did not expect a wikiproject assessment subpage that gets some odd 31 views a month to be contentious. i didn't vandalize the page either, I just moved the assessment box to the top. However, I understand that even edits that are improvements cannot be implemented by users who are topic-banned, but I do not think that my edit can be included under that "broadly construed" because of the aforementioned "Editors counselled" clause and because it is quite a stretch to include that edit as a violation. Is it possible to request a second opinion or arbitration clarification on whether this was a violation of my topic ban?

In my last block appeal, neither you nor asilvering said that assigning ratings to articles was a breach of my topic ban. I think it is the same here, though it is discouraged it is not blockable. Since that block was lifted, I did not use edit requests on P-I articles and I did not directly edit them (the violations that I was blocked for) so I cannot name other reasons why this block was put in place. Perhaps it was to remind me to ask admins before making an edit that "might possibly in any way violate the tban", but I, as any sensible person would do, had already read the arb case which affected me so I did not think that the edit in question would be a violation (for the reasons I described above).

To clarify, I am questioning the legitimacy of this block, though I accept that the administrator who placed it has acted in good faith to prevent disruption to P-I conflict-related articles. Partly, this is because the last unblock was my WP:LASTCHANCE and so appealing saying "I didn't know I promise I won't do it again" would be disingenuous but also because this block implies that I would waste the time of admins by appealing my previous block, only to force them to block me again less than a week after. User:Easternsahara 20:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, I don't understand. That edit is not in scope of the topic ban. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee WP:PALESTINE is part of the arab-israeli conflict now? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee The Palestine WikiProject does not fall under WP:CT/PIA. I don't understand how this new ban makes sense. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I know we all like ES and don't want them to remain unjustly blocked, but let Valereee get a chance to read through the arguments and links at least. They aren't normally online at this time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we'll know when Valereeee has a chance, but could the actual diff be, rather than the one in the block one, this one? [1]. It's a rather prosaic technical edit, but it at least is to a page covered by the CT. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find that one a stretch, too. The edit is adding the article to the politics wikiproject. It's not engaging with the topic in any meaningful way. -- asilvering (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree personally (though that's kinda above my paygrade), but was looking over the edits myself and that was the one that looked at least closest to something. So just wanted to note it! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to me WikiProject Palestine seems obviously to be within the contentious topic, and I was absolutely astounded that ES didn't at minimum take advice to ask here first if there was any possible question. But if I've made a mistake, I've made a mistake. I'll unblock, but I'd appreciate understanding how editing WikiProject Palestine isn't at minimum walking right up to the line, sticking a hand out over it, and saying, "See? I'm not crossing the line. My feet are on the other side of it. There are no air rights." Valereee (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee, with respect, you're responsible for every single line in Easternsahara's block log, with the sole exception of my unblock. Whatever their next actions are, I think you should leave the enforcement to someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I agree with @Valereee that the WikiProject is within the scope of the ban, and that the explicit request at the time of the last unblock was to ask questions first, rather than assert uncertainty about the scope of the topic area after the fact. It's important to have this scope unless the view is that pro-Israel editors with the same topic ban can also edit WikiProject Palestine. Coining (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coining I see no reason why a good-faith edit to WikiProject Palestine would be frowned upon just because someone who did it has a "pro-israel bias" User:Easternsahara 16:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coining, the edit simply moved one section of the wikiproject page to another place. I would not consider that a tban vio regardless of who did it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's because a topic ban isn't about the substance of the edits, or about divining good faith versus bad faith edits. A topic banned editor is banned from the topic regardless of how valuable each individual contribution may or may not be. If Palestine and Talk:Palestine are subject to the topic ban, and moving one section of those to a different location would be a violation, I see little principled reason why WP:WikiProject Palestine isn't within the scope of the topic ban as well.

  That having been said, @Valereee has undone the block, saying that a mistake was made. I don't think that is necessarily correct, and this might become a bad precedent for how close topic-banned editors can get to the topic they are banned from. Coining (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a tbanned editor is banned from the topic. One way I frequently describe this is "for the purposes of your editing, the topic does not exist". The Palestine wikiproject exists independently of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so making a formatting fix there is not materially different from someone who is tbanned from PIA editing, for example, the "climate" section of Israel. We allow editors who are tbanned to make edits to articles that are partially covered by their tban, provided that the edit itself has nothing to do with it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, I don't think this is a proper statement of the rule.

  WP:TBAN says:

  "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: ...

  weather-related project pages, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather" (emphases added).

  @Valereee, in light of your stepping away from involvement in this matter, is it appropriate to have a third administrator take a look at this? It is hard to square the Wikipedia policy document with the comments in this section. It turns things upside down to say that Palestine is independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict, when in many respects it is at the crux of the conflict. And project pages (broadly construed) are explicitly part of TBANs. Coining (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ES has a tban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically. "Israel" as a whole does not fall into that topic, and neither does "Palestine". -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coining, I don't think a third opinion is necessary here. The risk of damage from someone walking right up to their tban and making a constructive edit to see how close they can shave it is extremely low; at worst they're taking up people's time in discussions like this one and the multiple previous discussions of exactly where the line is and advice on how they can avoid appearing to game it. If they keep doing it, someone else will notice, but asilvering is correct that it shouldn't be me at this point. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's a fair practical point for this one editor, though there is a broader question. TBANs are not supposed to be about specificities, the actual policy says that such bans are "broadly construed" and cover all pages "broadly related to the topic". Coining (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is where I was coming from, but there seemed to be general consensus that I was interpreting 'broadly construed' too strictly. You could if you wanted open a section at wt:banning policy or some other appropriate forum to discuss the interpretation in a general way, but when I see general consensus against an admin action I've taken, I try to avoid doubling down. :) Valereee (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There seems to be a wide degree of interpretation over what is covered by topic bans. Noticed at User talk:Tombah#Template: History of Israel, an edit that now blocked sockpuppet account made after being topic banned to that template was not considered a ban violation. Even though it changed the date on the time period for Syria-Palaestina. And User:Iskandar323 was site banned for a talk page comment that did not mention Israel or Palestine. Don't see any consistency in definition or application. Tiamut (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To some degree I agree that's a problem, but I do think it is also to some extent inherent to the entire idea of a topic ban. Hence our typical "broadly construed" wording, and advice that tbanned editors stay as far away from the subject as possible to avoid misunderstandings. EasternShah has very obviously not taken that advice to heart, and has previously seriously struggled with even the concept of a topic ban, so the repeated blocks here should come as no surprise to anyone. And so in this case I'm hardly surprised to see that Valereee reached the end of her patience and blocked again, even though I disagree with the block entirely. This is why I don't think admins should make back-to-back blocks of the same individual if they can avoid it. I think the case for the block is stronger, and we can all trust the outcome more easily, if we get outside opinions. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And I agree with this. I think I just reached the end of my rope with the gaming, testing, wikilawyering, refusal to engage until forced, etc. But I should have just pinged someone. Valereee (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Easternsahara! The list you nominated, List of World Heritage Sites in Africa, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was originally on the wrong page, the bot posted it on User talk:Easternsahara which is a redirect. EasternShah (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1978 Iranian politics. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1978 Iranian politics is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, as an fyi in case you happened to miss it, this editor is on a last-chance unblock for tban vio in PIA. Given the overlap in these topic areas I figured I'd mention it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Talk:Genocide is tagged with the ARBPIA contentious topic banner. I am topic banned from the AIC, can I still partake in the RfC (Talk:Genocide#Request for comment on top definition of genocide, I do not think that it is directly related. Thanks, Sahib-e-Qiran 05:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like a second opinion, so I'll leave this open, but I think it's fine as long as you do not bring up or discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @EasternShah, I think @331dot is correct as a general answer to your question. But given that you've had real trouble sticking to your topic ban before and Gaza genocide is very much front of mind in discussions of the meaning of genocide these days, I'd strongly advise against participating there. Not to mention that this would be a very visible place to break your tban. You can be fairly certain an admin other than me or Valereee will notice. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with asilvering's advice. I don't think it's necessarily wise for you to contribute to that discussion. It's going to be very, very hard for you to abide by the ban and contribute there. But if you can, it is permitted. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it has been an article for a few years now. See Stephan Hanna Stephan. Tiamut (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am topic banned from the PIC. Can I edit Nadeen Ayoub (her career, accomplishments, early life) as long as I steer clear of content that is directly related to the PIC? I will not edit parts of the article that are about her getting harased by pro-Israel people, feud with an Israeli beauty queen, and analysis about the Gaza war. Also, can i edit the following articles:

1. List of ambassadors of Palestine to China
2. List of ambassadors of China to Palestine
3. List of Palestine international footballers born outside Palestine
4. Palestine Book Award?

thanks Sahib-e-Qiran 23:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but a topic ban means you cannot edit articles in that area, broadly construed. This applies to entire articles. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 01:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TBAN: weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not; This is why I am asking for an admin. I fixed my signature. No reply needed Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 01:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, this is not correct, someone can edit an article where only a portion is about the prohibited topic; I use Ms. Rachel as an example, a children's entertainer/educator who made comments about the Gaza War; banned/non-EC users could edit about her work but not her Gaza comments or her displaying art related to Gaza. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot thanks for clearing that up. It appears that I was wrong in this case. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 22:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie, for the reasons I mentioned here, which are based on written policy, I'm not sure you are wrong, though I do agree that the position on this talk page is that topic bans are interpreted narrowly instead of broadly. Coining (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please fix your signature. As a general rule of thumb, it should be obvious what your username is from the display of your signature, and "Sahib-e-Qiran" doesn't particularly tell me that your username is "EasternShah". thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 01:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Recognition of Palestine(and Israel, really) is a integral part of the conflict as recognizing Palestine confers the ability to exchange ambassadors; even now that more countries recognize them than not, I would steer clear of it to avoid any potential issue.

Yes, you should be fine to edit about Ayoub as you describe. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can i also edit the football and book award ones? Thanks for your response Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 15:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: sorry for the second ping but I don't think you commented on List of Palestine international footballers born outside Palestine and Palestine Book Award, is it acceptable for me to edit these as well? I understand that I should not edit the ambassador lists. Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 21:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be okay. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]