User talk:2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The destructive edits were not mine. I was restoring long-standing content that was erased and replaced with delegitimizing content without discussion or consensus by an editor with a long history of warnings and blocks related to the topic. Similarly, the editor that completely replaced the entry after the block also has a long history of bans related to the topic, and has posted to the talk page, requiring a response there. 2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wether or not they are, this IP range must remain blocked in order to protect the project. SQL ^{Query Me!} 22:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This does not protect the project. The article in question is locked for a month and the actual destructive editor is not blocked. My talk entries are not at issue. 2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is very likely you have not been personally blocked. Unfortunately, we are unable to unblock you because you have been caught in a rangeblock. These are applied to stop persistent vandals from using multiple IP addresses to evade their block. For our security, we cannot release this block early unless there is clear evidence of severe collateral damage. You can, however, log in to edit. If you don't have an account, you can request an account, making sure to add a link to this page for our reference in the comments section. Sorry for the inconvenience, but please let us know if you have any questions.

A minority of rangeblocks are "hard blocked" and prohibit editing even if logged in, due to exceptional vandalism or other similar issues. If despite creating an account, you still find that you cannot edit even when logged in, then please contact us again with the relevant error message. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. W C M_email 06:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The destructive edits were not mine. I was restoring long-standing content that was erased and replaced with delegitimizing content without discussion or consensus by an editor with a long history of warnings and blocks related to the topic. Similarly, the editor that completely replaced the entry after the block also has a long history of bans related to the topic, and has posted to the talk page, requiring a response there. 2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are essentially arguing that your edit-warring was justified because your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. JBW (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thus, both parties should have been blocked. Especially considering the other editor's behavior and history. 2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 11:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.