User talk:2409:40E3:103D:8274:9C8C:70EA:4A59:29C6

Introduction to contentious topics

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ECR violation

WP:ARBECR is quite clear: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. The edit that you restored is not an edit request. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Bitton, this is a classic edit request to change the first sentence. I don’t understand why you or your friend got so spooked. That guy even went as far as restoring an old version, discarding edits from other users instead of simply undoing their deletion. Crazy 2409:40E3:103D:8274:9C8C:70EA:4A59:29C6 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What kind of a stupid comment is this? M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was that my request was met with an exaggerated response that disregarded collaborative efforts, possibly due to overly protective behavior regarding the content. My reversion of your revert then led to your friend, acquaintance, co-editor, or maybe even a sock account removing not just my contribution, but also those from other users, all in the name of "restoration." This was unwise—a simple undo would have sufficed. It seems the aim was specifically to remove my edit, and using an old version restore was the sneakiest way to do so after my objections and my reversion of your revert.

Several hours ago, that user(who used restore) received some request to restore certain specific content. However, no one asked them to restore everything while disregarding edits from other users. Anyway, I’m not interested in this anymore—I get bored very easily. On to the next one. 2409:40E3:103D:8274:9C8C:70EA:4A59:29C6 (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I have very little patience for hose who cast aspersions. I'm done here (further violations from you will simply be reported). M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

---