User talk:RadidAl: Difference between revisions

 

Line 37: Line 37:

:# The restrictions described in the blue box come from the Arbitration Committee. No administrator, including myself, has the authority to set those aside now that you are aware of them.

:# The restrictions described in the blue box come from the Arbitration Committee. No administrator, including myself, has the authority to set those aside now that you are aware of them.

:I highlight these issues not to discourage you as an editor but to make you aware of the seriousness of the situation. Wikipedia has a history of disruption in a number of topics, including the conflict between Israelis and Arabs, that have led to the Arbitration Committee issuing these rulings and restrictions. While they do a good job helping us get rid of the truly malicious actors, some good editors get caught in their net as well. So, if I can help a good editor avoid tripping up early on, I want to do that. —”'[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]”’ ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 14:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:I highlight these issues not to discourage you as an editor but to make you aware of the seriousness of the situation. Wikipedia has a history of disruption in a number of topics, including the conflict between Israelis and Arabs, that have led to the Arbitration Committee issuing these rulings and restrictions. While they do a good job helping us get rid of the truly malicious actors, some good editors get caught in their net as well. So, if I can help a good editor avoid tripping up early on, I want to do that. —”'[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]”’ ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 14:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Welcome mentee|image=library}}–[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 23:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi RadidAl! I noticed that you’ve made several edits in order to restore a version of War and genocide. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you’re aware of Wikipedia’s edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you’re doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:War and genocide, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors’ changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred! thank you for reaching out. I know for a fact that the content I removed violates Wikipedia’s rules and Wikipedia is better off without those lies. I see that you and your other 2 friends are ganging against me and that’s also a violation of Wikipedia’s rules.

You can’t possibly defend a violation of Wikipedia’s own rules and warn me for trying to make it a better place RadidAl (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a clear lack of consensus for the edits you’re trying to make – which multiple other editors reverting you is a solid indication of – you are required to establish that consensus before attempting to re-make those edits, even if you are convinced you “know for a fact” you’re in the right. This applies particularly in the case of contentious topics. So yes, C.Fred was right to warn you (very gently) about rules against edit warring.

Also, please remember that Wikipedia editors are asked to assume good faith of each other. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to go a step further than AntiDionysius here. I think you might even be right that the section on Gaza needs to come out. However, unlike the assertion that Gaza is one of the biggest genocides on earth, which was easily removed for lacking sources, the section on Gaza as a genocide does not raise a red flag to require immediate removal. While it isn’t a situation of undue weight per the NPOV policy, you could argue that it spends too much space on the article on one particular instance. That pushes it into the realm of a content dispute, and content disputes need to be resolved through discussion and reaching consensus through discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you’ve made to War and genocide. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AntiDionysius (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two very important notes about this blue box:

1. For the purpose of the contentious topic rules, War and genocide is within the topic of the Arab–Israeli conflict, to the extent that any section directly mentions the conflict. So, since this blue blox has been placed here, you may not remove or edit that section of the article at all; you must work with other editors at the talk page and, after consensus is achieved, have an editor with the necessary experience make the edit.
2. The restrictions described in the blue box come from the Arbitration Committee. No administrator, including myself, has the authority to set those aside now that you are aware of them.

I highlight these issues not to discourage you as an editor but to make you aware of the seriousness of the situation. Wikipedia has a history of disruption in a number of topics, including the conflict between Israelis and Arabs, that have led to the Arbitration Committee issuing these rulings and restrictions. While they do a good job helping us get rid of the truly malicious actors, some good editors get caught in their net as well. So, if I can help a good editor avoid tripping up early on, I want to do that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RadidAl, and welcome to Wikipedia! I’m Ozzie10aaaa and I’ve volunteered to be your Wikipedia mentor. I’m here for you whenever you need help with Wikipedia. It’s great to have you on board to help create this online encyclopedia.

See your homepage for a brief tutorial. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the “Suggested edits” module top left on your homepage, or the Task Center.

Help is available: as your Mentor, you can always find me listed in the “Get editing help” module bottom right on your homepage; there are also additional help links there. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or try the Wikipedia:Teahouse to get help designed especially for new users from a team of experienced volunteers. So go ahead and ask questions — we’re here to help!

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia!–Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]