You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are repeatedly removing sourced, long-standing content from Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite being reverted for it. We don't force our views on others instead of gaining consensus. Doing this again and again, while even incoporating incivil comments as you did here ("thoughtless"), is disruptive. Please stop and gain consensus for your controversial deletions. HaOfa (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When removing long-standing, sourced material, it is the remover's responsibility to gain consensus for their actions. I see you continue to remove material anyway. These removals have been reverted multiple times now. I ask you again to stop. HaOfa (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is unacceptable for two reasons: it directly contradicts the provided reliable sources, and rewrites history. If you're not sufficiently familiar with the history of the Jewish people (who have been described as an ethnos or nation centuries and possibly millennia before Zionism), consider editing other topics instead. Per WP:CIR, please try to improve your editing. HaOfa (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i find these things incomprehensible. What is happening here? Is the daniel guy trying to get you banned from the topic area for violating 1rr? DMH223344 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious topics: Arab–Israeli conflict
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
I saw you removed the NPOV tag I put on Zionism. I don't think it's kosher to remove the tag while there are extensive and robust discussions, seconded and thirded and fourthed, about the NPOV issues. However, I'm not sure how consensus required intersects with the tag. I would assume that consensus required doesn't mean that challenging a tag means that the tag need an affirmative consensus, but maybe it does. Either way though, since I just dropped 17k bytes on the talk, mostly of quotes, could you kindly restore the NPOV tag? Andre🚐00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DMH223344. You added two sets of broken references to the Zionism article. The first was "Shafir 1996" in this edit[1], and the second was "Cleveland 2010" in this edit[2].
Short form references such as those created by {{sfn}} are just hyperlinks to full cites elsewhere in the article, the are not valid references on their own. See the template documentation. Could you add the required cites to the Zionism#Works cited section of the article.
You may not be able to see the errors you are causing, as they are off by default. You can turn them on by following the instructions here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. If you're have any questions please just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what does "Just realised these sae references not a book, they require page number or similar" mean? The cited Gorny ref is a book, so I'm confused by this edit summary. DMH223344 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the one-revert rule at Zionism (revert 1 & revert 2) after previous warnings, you have been blocked temporarily from editing that article. 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.
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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You've already been warned twice in a few months about edit warring and 1RR in this topic area so I would expect that you are being very careful. That does not seem to be the case. Yes, it's only a block from directly editing the Zionism article so you can still edit the talk page and discussions elsewhere. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Yeah, sorry about the uninformative comment. Basically Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel is widely understood to be fraudulent and largely plagiarized from another fraudulent book, From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. DMH223344 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
Hi, I would like to continue the discussion I started on the "Zionism" Talk page - in the hindsight it was a mistake on my part to start it there, because it was misinterpreted at some sort of personal attack against you, which wasn't my intention at all.
The correct thing would have been to write to you personally here, and I apologize for not doing it from the start.
I understand that there is no policy limiting the number or frequency of edits you, or any other editor for that matter, can make on a certain page, but like I said previously, the WP:CAUTIOUS editing policy requires that major changes are discussed first on article's talk page, before making the edit.
I realize that sometimes WP:BRD is considered to be one of possible strategies for seeking consensus, but I believe it becomes less effective, when the volume of edits is as high as yours. DancingOwl (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CAUTIOUS section is about providing explanations for edits, not about reducing the amount of editing. Editors are much more likely to engage with edits made to the article directly than with discussions on the talk page, and it's often much easier for everyone to discuss real edits rather than proposed edits on the talk page.
It really shouldnt take much time to review the edits made to that page, either daily or weekly (I understand not everyone makes the time to check daily). One option open to you is to revert a large group of edits which are difficult for you to review closely but that you find questionable, and to insist on a discussion, although I don't know if that violates policy (I have not tried that before). You could also try posting a discussion without performing a revert (that sounds more in line with policy). Sorry if this is obvious and unhelpful. DMH223344 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that WP:CAUTIOUS doesn't talk about the volume of editing, but it does say:
Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page.
And I realize that apparently my intention wasn't clear enough in the beginning, so perhaps I should clarify that I don't consider the large volume of edits per se to be a problem in any way - my only concern is that some of those edits include major changes to the article, and when the editing volume is high, it's getting more difficult to differentiate between such edits, which are better to be discussed prior to making a change, and the bulk of the changes, which are less likely to be controversial.
I just finished a big project, so will have more time to dedicate to editing now, hopefully also including a daily review of edits, but I would really appreciate it if you could be mindful of this concern as well. DancingOwl (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was explicitly suggested to me by one of the other editors to discuss this here, and I took your and other editors' comments into account, and made sure that my comments here are strictly policy-based, so I really don't understand why you insist on trying to silence me, especially when me and @DMH223344 are conducting a mutually respectful discussion. DancingOwl (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sure feels like it, when I did exactly what was suggested to me and took this discussion here, but you still come after me and keep telling me to "drop it".
Look, I really respect you and appreciate all the help I got from you in the past, but I think you're crossing the line into a outright policing here and it's really out of place. DancingOwl (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
