You have recently edited a page related to Sri Lanka, 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.
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.
Hi Kalanishashika! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tamil genocide several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tamil genocide. 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.
Thank you both for your comments. I was warned of edit waring earlier and there for careful. I didn't think the content changes I did fall under edit waring since I gave exact reasons for newly added content removal. However, I feel Oz346's revert with accusations against me is both disruptive and uncivil. Hope you could look into it. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalanishashika removing sourced material, where the author is a subject matter expert, with edit summaries such as "Removed newly added content since there is no agreement that the source is reliable in RSN" is disruptive. Your subjective view that there was no consensus does not make a source unreliable. Further Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources is not the point of truth on whether community consensus determines sources to be reliable or not. Such discussion occur at WP:RSN. Kind Regards, TarnishedPathtalk04:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, I agree on all points mentioned above. Doesn't Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle state that content that has been added if contested needs to be agreed on and although reliability sourced material needs included with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, relevant information should go to the relevant article. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that the editor who introduce the content needs to prove that the source is reliable, I took the source to RSN and it was not confirmed as a reliable source. I was quoting the Wiki Project since other editors used it to justify other sources used in the article. If you say it's not the point of truth, I am ok with it. However, then we will have to reclassify a lot of sources referred to it. Should we take all of these to RSN? Kalanishashika (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject may be useful insofar as it gives the opinions of some editors, however I'd note that what I saw just from looking at a screen full was a bunch of discussions with extremely limited participation. I don't know that it's particularly useful for determining community consensus. Now at the same time I wouldn't suggest taking every source to WP:RSN because there may be sources which upon a reading of WP:RS the reliability is clear and no one in talk disagrees. Please also note that BRD is an explanatory essay and is not compulsory. The compulsory policies are WP:EPTALK and WP:EW. TarnishedPathtalk12:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to your preferred version without consensus and thereby engaging in slow edit warring. Although you can appeal if you wish, a unanimous consensus of administrators placed this sanction, so it is exceedingly unlikely that an appeal will be successful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Tips
