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 an account age of 30 days, and 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
re: CTOP
Hi @Anerdw I know you're not a newbie, but also saw you don't mind getting templates placed on your page. I wanted to add this specific template as there are specific restrictions related to the Israel-Palestine topic area regarding editing that I wanted to make sure you're aware of.
I added the same CTOP to that IP. They're already in violation of this restriction, so if their disruptive editing continues, ANI might be the next step. Happy to help with that if you'd like. Delectopierre (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+rollback
Hi Anerdw,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Just wanted to make sure you were aware that the Shared IP advice template should always be substituted when placing it on a user's talk page. So the correct way to use it is {{subst:Shared IP advice}}. You're not the only person who's made that mistake before lol. Happy editing! Gommeh (talk/contribs)13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was a highly active editor until I got banned for a copyright violation I didn’t commit. Wikipedia’s nowoverrun by clueless auditors who obsessively slap ‘Citation Needed’ on everything, while competent editors are all but gone. It’s a waste of time and energy when a few hours of my work gets wiped out by some self-important, wannabe cop wielding a rollback like a weapon.
Hi. Sorry if this comes across a little rude, I'm going through a lot right now and having this submission declined so many times is really taking a toll.
I have over 20 sources, and at least half of them are about Shaw and are not written by her or her organization. Some are written by completely seperate writers and do not include interviews. I just don't understand how not a single one of those sources qualifies as "reliable and secondary".
I have seen many a Wikipedia Article with a single source which is a poorly written foreign interview with the person the Article is about. And yet it goes through and never gets improved.
I'm improving my article multiple times a day and yet, seemingly because of the controversial topic, it never goes through. There are hundreds of sources on Shaw all across and off the internet, and yet no reviewer will give me a clear answer about what I am looking for in terms of a source.
At very least tell me why in the world those articles with the one source get through and my article, which is much better written, very thorough, and has 20 sources including interviews, does not.
Hi, thanks for reaching out. I wanted to start by saying thanks for your contributions. I’m sure it took a lot of effort to write the article, and I don’t want you to think the article was rejected out of spite or bias or anything like that. Which sources specifically do you think are reliable and secondary? I’m more than happy to explain my reasoning. Anerdw (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, specifically I was thinking about the interviews and some of the Live Action News articles. The interviews involve Shaw but as mentioned I have seen many accepted articles that have only one source, which is just an interview with the person the article is about. So, by comparison, just one interview should have been enough.
Additionally, while one or two of the Live Action News articles are written by Shaw, most of them are written by others about Shaw and some of them were written not only before Shaw wrote for Live Action but before Shaw gained any sort of fame or notoriety. I just don't understand why none of these are considered secondary or reliable.
It seems that between all of these, it should have gone through several times over. Either that, or these articles that I'm talking about with 1 obstensibly irreliable source should not have gone through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff3504 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You hit it on the head - articles with one bad source should not have gone through. Check out WP:DEL for potential courses of action if you see an article like that, including (but not limited to) deletion.
In general, "other stuff exists" is an argument that should be applied with caution. Wikipedia is a very dynamic project, and bad things make it into the encyclopedia all the time. It's usually better to base decisions on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are listed at WP:POLICYLIST, than to base them on the content of other articles. (In this case, those policies are mainly WP:Notability and WP:NPERSON.) See WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL for certain editors' thoughts on this sort of argument.
I'll go through the Live Action News sources on by one. If you haven't yet, give WP:Notability (particularly the general notability guidelines) and WP:NPERSON a once-over before you continue; it'll give you a better idea of the kind of analysis I'm doing. Some of these articles are very obviously not proof of Shaw's notability - I'm including those for completeness, not as an insult to your intelligence.
"Tori was haunted..." seems to be entirely based on an interview in which Shaw discussed her life. That means it's primary and not independent.
