User talk:JohnR1Roberts
Welcome!
[edit]Hi JohnR1Roberts! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
Hello JohnR1Roberts, the "500 edits" restriction described in the blue box above applies to talk page discussions such as RfCs too, so you may not start them about questions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me!
- Does this restriction apply to all talk pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or just starting/contributing to RfCs? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- It applies to all pages related to the conflict not just RFCs. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- JohnR1Roberts, Special:Diff/1194825772 was after the clarification above and after other edits, so I'm certain you had received the message by Philipnelson99. Is there something unclear about it? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
To reiterate, within the topic area, you are currently limited to the making of edit requests only, thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by CanonNi (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by CanonNi (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]
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.
- That's fair. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to ask, though: Why was my most recent edit reverted? Making uncontroversial edit requests on the talk pages for articles that are under extended-confirmed protection is allowed, no? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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."
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I just wanted to let you know that JohnR1Roberts has violated ECR again (please see diff). M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I made an uncontroversial edit request to change an article in a talk page. To my understanding, this is not a violation of ECR. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an edit request, and besides, you violated ECR multiple times (see Diff 2 and Diff 3). M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article in Diffs 2 and 3 was not under ECR protection. The changes I made were uncontroversial, as I was bringing the text in line with Wikipedia's current name for the event. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Diffs 2 and 3 are clear violations of ECR. If only part of an article is covered by the CTOP it generally wont be blanket protected unless there is disruption, but the prohibition on non-EC editors editing about the topic is still in place. It is expected after the notification about the sanctions that you would familiarize yourself with them. Diff 1 is close enough to an edit request that I'll let it slide, but is there a reason you should not be blocked for the violations shown in diffs 2 and 3? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. I should have familiarized myself with the ECR sanctions on ARBPIA. That was my failure. Does WP:IGNOREALLRULES apply if I think my edits improved the article and were in service of the Wikipedia project? I'm assuming that ArbCom trumps that, but it's worth asking. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The burden for IAR is much higher than what you were editing. You could IAR to revert clear vandalism or obvious BLP violations. Not to change the name of a war. Is it perfectly clear that you cannot edit anything to do with the topic, even if the page is not protected? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You have made that clear to me. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good. Please don't let this happen again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You have made that clear to me. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The burden for IAR is much higher than what you were editing. You could IAR to revert clear vandalism or obvious BLP violations. Not to change the name of a war. Is it perfectly clear that you cannot edit anything to do with the topic, even if the page is not protected? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. I should have familiarized myself with the ECR sanctions on ARBPIA. That was my failure. Does WP:IGNOREALLRULES apply if I think my edits improved the article and were in service of the Wikipedia project? I'm assuming that ArbCom trumps that, but it's worth asking. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Diffs 2 and 3 are clear violations of ECR. If only part of an article is covered by the CTOP it generally wont be blanket protected unless there is disruption, but the prohibition on non-EC editors editing about the topic is still in place. It is expected after the notification about the sanctions that you would familiarize yourself with them. Diff 1 is close enough to an edit request that I'll let it slide, but is there a reason you should not be blocked for the violations shown in diffs 2 and 3? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that any proposed change to an article would be an edit request. However, it's clear that I was wrong. Could you please let me know how I could have more appropriately requested this change? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article in Diffs 2 and 3 was not under ECR protection. The changes I made were uncontroversial, as I was bringing the text in line with Wikipedia's current name for the event. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an edit request, and besides, you violated ECR multiple times (see Diff 2 and Diff 3). M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)