User talk:Jcbw2006

Hi Jcbw2006! 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, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

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:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 18:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note that as the Iran-Israel conflict is deeply intertwined with Iranian positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, edits to articles and Talk page discussions relating to topics such as 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran are restricted to WP:XC editors. While uncontroversial edit requests are allowed, this comment is insufficiently specific in its recommendation of a change (and not uncontroversial), and is thus not allowed. In general, "uncontroversial" in this context means changes that are unambiguously correct, regardless of what one's POV on the conflict is (e.g. spelling corrections, grammar fixes, updating statistics from the same sources, etc.). I would recommend reviewing WP:ECREXPLAIN for more guidance and best practices on engaging with highly contentious topics on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jcbw2006! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community.

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to let the editors on that wikipedia understand they're biased. They is too much biased hostily against Israel. Not equal on both sides. Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but until you are extendedconfirmed you are limited to posting edit requests to the talk pages covered by the WP:ARBECR restrictions, and those edit requests should follow the WP:EDITXY guideline. As for bias in the topic area, almost all editors active in the topic area are biased one way or the other. The hope is that if people follow the rules, content that complies with policy will gradually emerge over time thanks in part to the diversity of the editor population. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 20:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Co-founder of Wikipedia has seen it already Jcbw2006 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Who cares what Sanger thinks? He claims Covid vaccines weren’t really vaccines. He’s just one of a lot of right wingers who hate it..

Anyway you need to stop using article talk pages as forums for your opinions, that is not what they are for. Consider this a warning.. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well the other guy was giving opinion but wikipedia is for neutrality. Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

i was correcting the people. Do not pretend wikipedia is not biased. Left vs right. It's left-leaning more then balancing. Also why you on my page too lecturing me? Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

also my opinion was not opinion when coming "Restore Britain" it was pointing out wikipedia editors need to stop. Wikipedia is not reliable source if they keep happening. Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also Jimmy Wales said the same he made wikipedia Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Not all right-wing say covid vaccines are bad you're full of simplation. How the heck you editing on wikipedia with this non-neutral act Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

throughout my 2-3 weeks coming back to wikipedia edit. I fixed 63 local articles that are not neutral, fair or accurate at all, many thanks recieved to me. Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeat WP:PIA violations despite several warnings, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. 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. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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."

:I'm sorry but i need reason why you blocked me? I requesting edit for neutrality and you're sliencing me Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

As was previously explained, "uncontroversial" does not mean "things you believe are neutral", but rather "things that anyone, regardless of their POV on the underlying topic, would find to be an improvement" (in this case, think "anyone from Ben Gvir to Trump to the UN Secretary General to Khamenei"). Further contravention of WP:PIA will result in longer blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You are biased rn. I am providing neutal views for Israel too are you biased? Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I provided referrences and justify for my edit request. Its not POV its the fair you need balanced views because you can't be one-sided, the wikipedia entry pictures Israel as wrong when Iran had intents. Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

are you sliencing me? Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I provided rerferrneces for request edit Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

As you've indicated that you have no intent to observe our arbitration policies, I am going to have to extend this block to be indefinite. This has nothing to do with your views and everything to do with new editors in general not being allowed to edit these topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't do nothing i only requested a edit. I am aiming to make it neutral as possible. The entry is missing lot of it. We need a Israel side because it's too much biased now. So fix your wikipedia pages instead sliencing me. Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

also i am not new to editing. This is just a new account Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't understand. I wasn't fully aware of these policies because they ain't always notifed to me. I have intent to follow the policies I never said I won't. I'm trying to express myself here, you're not being fair here as a admin. Jcbw2006 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

Jcbw2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I apologize for my behavior and for not following the WP:PIA (Palestine-Israel) restrictions for new accounts. I now understand that my edit requests were considered "controversial" and "tendentious" under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policies. Regarding my comment about not being new to editing, I meant that I briefly edited years ago on a different account that has since been deleted/abandoned. This is my only active account and I am not using it to bypass any previous blocks. If unblocked, I promise to strictly avoid all WP:PIA and political topics and will focus only on uncontroversial, non-political edits to demonstrate that I can contribute according to community guidelines. Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline here. Jcbw2006, you can be unblocked by Rosguill directly, or, failing that, by a consensus of administrators at WP:AE. If Rosguill declines to unblock you and you want your block to be reviewed at AE, please open a new unblock request and write the exact comment you want an admin to take to AE for you as the basis of your appeal. asilvering (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

My hope for wikipedia is two-side neutrality as possible because i don't know what's real anymore without this. Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

As this is an Arbitration Enforcement block, no admin can unilaterally remove it; the blocking admin must consent to removal, or a statement can be brought to the Arbitration Enforcement board or Administrator's noticeboard. Is this the statement you would like considered for a discussion?

Note that Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors when determining what they think about what they read. It is possible to read a Wikipedia article and disagree with everything presented, as long as sources are being accurately summarized. Wikipedia does not give equal time to all points of view if reliable sources do not, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

On first read I was pleasantly surprised by the change in tack and was considering accepting the request outright. However, rereading it again, I’m concerned that this unblock request may have been drafted using AI, noting that it makes several somewhat incorrect statements about the relevant policies and guidelines (particularly I now understand that my edit requests were considered "controversial" and "tendentious" under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policies.); having run the text through a handful of AI detectors, all results came back either “AI generated” or “mixed”. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I barely done anything wrong. The policy on NPOV is not always followed, you notice it. But I'm here to ensure I will not edit on Arab-Israel pages. You treating this with too much attention, acting like I am THAT bad. For most of the time, I was unaware of the warnings I may received regarding Arab-Israeli pages. 99% of my edits or edit request are outside anything relating to Israel or Arab countries. Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It makes me feel like you are just sliencing me now. You're not being fair here. It's been over 5 days. I haven't done anything since. Want to get edits on UK articles to ensure neutral point of view as possible. Jcbw2006 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In 2 weeks, 240,000 views on the impacted pages. 99% related to UK. Jcbw2006 (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well I was told 31 hours, It's been over 76 hours now. I'm still getting new and adapted towards whatever Wikipedia does in 2026. Jcbw2006 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Your block was originally 31 hours, but as can be seen in the above discussion, your block was extended to indefinite, as in the judgment of the administrator, you demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia rules. You'd best be served using this time to review what an WP:EDITREQUEST actually is. If you are unblocked at some point, you will still not be able to edit anything in the PIA area except for edit requests, and the one you made was extremely inappropriate. One of the requirements is that the edit request must be uncontroversial, meaning they should be uncontroversial improvements (like fixing spelling or grammar) or things that are already agreed upon by consensus and would not require a discussion.

You have a far better chance of getting unblocked if you seriously address the problems with your editing (and in your own words). Telling people you "barely done anything wrong" is not the least bit helpful; that this is an arbitration block made after you ignored multiple warnings means that it is a Very Big Deal in the context of Wikipedia. Noting the number of "impacted pages" that have had to survive without your participation is also not helpful. With the approach you're currently taking, there will be millions and millions more views to these articles without your input. And yes, I agree there are NPOV issues in these pages; right now, the community doesn't trust you to solve them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You're not understanding me. I never said was unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia rules. I stand for the rules of Wikipedia you are misunderstanding and misjudging me becauae I was UNAWARE beforehand.. I don't understand what you talking about. The "impacted pages" was not part of it. Now you are panicking me here because you're not understanding me. Jcbw2006 (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What "seriously problems with your editing" you want me to address? I given you a fair appeal. Jcbw2006 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

"barely done anything wrong" was out-context and weren't part of my appeal. Jcbw2006 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit any page on Wikipedia related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until you are extended-confirmed, meaning your account is 30 days old with 500 edits(though you'll likely need to ask for such permissions manually after 500 edits from now). This includes all but wholly uncontroversial edit requests(meaning those that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with). 331dot (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

But you're not being equal at all. The admin clearly was misunderstanding what I was talking about. Administrator framed it as i was unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia rules, I just wanted extra understanding and logic by the admin, not just judging. How am I meant to appeal when nobody has given me guide to appeal or anything Jcbw2006 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You've been told how to appeal a few times now. You may also want to read WP:GAB. Do you have any specific questions about the procedure? -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)