User talk:BenjoP: Difference between revisions

Line 86: Line 86:

{{unblock | reason=Hello, I request once again to unblock my account. All of my edits were all reference and Wikipedia based. Regarding my block because of my edit on a page related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, I wasn’t aware that I’m not authorised to edit those kind of pages since there were no blocking methods that I’m familiar with. I’m a new Wikipedia editor, and It’s very important for me to add a value to all places needed. Thank you in advance and for your understanding and cooperation. Wish you a new N NewYear! [[User:BenjoP|BenjoP]] ([[User talk:BenjoP#top|talk]]) 09:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

:You didn’t read any of the replies to your above request, did you? – [[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]] ([[User talk:Adolphus79|talk]]) 12:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi BenjoP! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Adolphus79. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, M4 carbine, but you didn’t provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it’s important that article content be verifiable. If you’d like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Adolphus79 (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page M4 carbine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BenjoP, you’ve been given a CTOP notice as it relates to the PIA topic area, but those notices can be confusing. There is a rule that editors who are not WP:XC cannot make edits that are related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, broadly construed. This means that this restriction can also apply to “parts” of an article, even if the overall article is not covered by the topic area. All of these edits violate this restriction [1][2][3][4]. I’m not going to report you for this, so please don’t be concerned about your past edits. Just wanted you to be aware! NicheSports (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BenjoP these two edits [5][6] that you made after my note above both violate the ARBPIA restriction. Please stop making edits in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area until you have 500 edits NicheSports (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated ARBPIA violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. 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.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.”

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. 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.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You *just* were blocked for this exact behavior, and then went ahead with this edit. You had ample opportunity to avoid this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BenjoP (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

BenjoP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

This is an Arbitration Enforcement block, so there are only two ways it can be removed, either the blocking admin must consent to it being removed, or a community discussion determines it should be removed. This statement is far from sufficient for either method; please read the good advice below, and review the block notice carefully. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2025 (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.

That’s a pretty short request. Can you please explain in detail what you did wrong, and why it was wrong? – Adolphus79 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Yep, blocks are intended to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia.

You need to demonstrate understanding of:

What you did that caused you to be blocked,
Why that was disruptive, and
How you will avoid causing the same problems in future.

Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and address these points in a new post below, since this appeal is very likely to be declined as inadequate. Make too many declined appeals and you’ll lose access to your Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note in case this gets a response and I’m away for the holidays — with regard to this block and any future unblock requests, I do not object should any administrator wish to accept an unblock request and remove this block, just treat it as if it were a standard non-AE unblock request, and I’ll endorse the result either way. Of course, they should demonstrate the above understanding as posted by Blue Sonnet.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This is good news @BenjoP, please take as much time as you can to write your best appeal & make sure you’ve gone through your edit history so you don’t miss anything.

You need to prove to a complete stranger that you can be trusted to edit Wikipedia, but you only have a few paragraphs to do it.

Hopefully this isn’t overwhelming, but I’ve got a few tips for you:

Think about things from the perspective of someone who’s coming into this completely cold, who’s primary concern is protecting Wikipedia from damage. They need evidence that you’re safe to unblock.
Read every comment from other people who raised concerns, because this is what the admin will be doing too. Read every warning message.
Look at every policy or guideline involved & try to figure out which of your actions violated that policy/guidelines and what you should have done instead. Cite those policies/guidelines to show you’ve done your research.
Make bullet points of every problem or concern you think they might have, then cover each point.
Consider writing your appeal in an external program like Word (without using Copilot – no AI!) and have Wikipedia open on the side so you can double-check you’ve got everything.
If you think it will help to avoid certain areas or topics for a while, suggest and agree to that in your appeal.
Remember this pattern for your appeal: What you did > Why it was problematic > How you will act differently in future.

Good luck! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t read any of the replies to your above request, did you? – Adolphus79 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment