User talk:79.180.47.77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome![edit]

Hi 79.180.47.77! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.


As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARBECR[edit]

Per WP:ARBECR, all that you are entitled to do in the above topic area is make straightforward edit requests at article talk page, nothing more. Thanks for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey thank you, Selfstudier
can you Please provide me with some constructive criticism regarding the edit Ive made were not compliance so I could improve my skills at straightforward edit requests at article talk page ? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest two contributions seem more or less OK, remember to follow WP:EDITXY. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and what regarding my other contributions?
which of my contributions caused you to warn me?
I am pretty sure that everywhere I have Posted An Edit request It has Followed Change X to Y or was a response to a discussion in a civil manner, and if not I would appreciate if you could point to my diffs where I did somthing wrong so I know what to Apologize for and not repeat my mistakes again. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a warning, it is an explanation of your standing at the moment. I don't have anything more to add right now. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WYM by its not a warning?
isn't putting up a notice on the talk page the first step of blocking per WP:ARBECR? "requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic,"79.180.47.77 (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's not a warning? Of course, anyone can be blocked for persistently breaching the rules, best thing is not to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anyone can be blocked for persistently breaching the rules
ok, good to know that.
I have yet to find a working "brake mechanisms" in Wikipedia that prevent a group of admin/editors in Wikipedia from citing various guidelines and policies in order to find "persistent breaching of rules" of editors who don't align with them politically.
are you aware of such mechanisms or policy and if so, where I could find it? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends which rules are being broken. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the "evidence" for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action." 79.180.47.77 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI or possibly WP:AE but if it is a CT (contentious topic), then you do not have standing to make such a complaint as the restriction to edit requests only applies broadly. Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
isn't blocking Request for CT more contentious? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
like, instead of saying that unregister users don't have a leg to stand on because they are unrigester..
I think it be more productive to address what they wrote, assume good faith and answer their concerns instead of ignoring them? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has all been discussed at length previously and the consensus is that the gains outweigh the losses. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now, I really do not have anything further to add on this matter as the conversation is becoming circular and unproductive. Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now you have made a similar inquiry at the Tea House and have received one answer. Frankly I find it difficult to imagine how an editor with so few contributions could possibly have encountered persistent breaching of rules by anyone. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey ScottishFinnishRadish, good morning.
can you please explain me what is exactly was wrong with my behavior so I could know for the future?
as written in the guidelines: "its important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you....".
thank you and have a good day! 79.180.47.77 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:79.180.47.77&oldid=1225704063"