User talk:Wikieditor19920

Wikieditor19920, to follow up on my warning to you at Talk:Palestinian enclaves (ping attached), I'm letting you know that I'm logging a warning to you about dialing it down considerably in any and all ARBPIA matters. Because this is an especially fraught topic area, a certain level of, shall I say, fīnesse, is expected in so far as dispassionate conduct is concerned. Aggression and derision are not to be tolerated for this topic area. So, I hope you take this as a wakeup call to improve considerably on that front, because that is what's required. Otherwise, as said, the chances for sanctions are high. Note that similar warnings may be issued to other participants in that discussion. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 21:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hi, Wikieditor19920. I see your alert for this area just expired, so here's your new one. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi again, Wikieditor19920. This is just to notify you of a discussion at WP:ARCA that I launched following a query from Shrike about my logged warning to you above. I'd like to stress that this clarification request was posted by me without prejudice to you in any way (whatsoever). Anyway, the discussion is at: WP:ARCA#WP:AWARE and logged warnings (and topic area regulars). El_C 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: OK, I am going to stay out of this one and focus on content not politics/bureaucracy. I think my strength is in the former not the latter, and I understood the reason for your warning. Thanks for the heads up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, you bet. Regards, El_C 19:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification request you were a party to, Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions, has been closed and archived. You can view a permalink of the here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have never edited Cancel culture or its talkpage, it is very obvious that you have inserted yourself into that ANI report purely because you have a previous dispute with Bacondrum and are trying to get them sanctioned. When I have seen you at other articles recently, I thought you had improved your combative nature, but I was clearly wrong. I strongly suggest you stay away from that editor, and it may be a good start to strike out that "vote" on a dispute that has nothing to do with you. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite I'd actually prefer to see Bacondrum stop the same behavior that led to our having issues. I'm seeing a lot of the same things that I found frustrating in his interactions with Crossroads. But I'll reframe my vote as a suggestion to Bacondrum on how to move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikieditor19920_and_repeated_personal_attacks nableezy - 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop removing comments when you get an edit conflict? nableezy - 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

On behalf of Steamboat2020 and myself, thank you for all of your help on the Arab States and Israel article. Given our recent interactions with Selfstudier, both of us had become fed up with his disruptive behavior on the article. Your edits have greatly improved the article as well. Something Steamboat and I have tried to get Selfstudier to do, but obviously, his anti-Israeli bias prevented him from doing so the past two months on making the article better. I've told him many times to provide a source countering the article's existence, but he couldn't do that one basic thing. Thank you so much. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found my edits helpful, and I agree the user you mentioned has been following an unhelpful approach. I would suggest not mentioning or insinuating anything about bias on the part of another editor. It will only get in the way of your efforts to improve an article. If someone accuses you of bias, don't follow suit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is based on fact, not an insinuation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, I just want to see you continue to do well in this area. Glad I could help. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. You're right about nableezy, but Selfstudier should also be topic banned from editing articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has a history of being disruptive. Evidence has been of our engagement with him and on his talk page where he was warned of such behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, obviously. And I have a much longer history of interaction with both editors than you do. But right or not, trust me that I am telling you in good faith that you should not talk about anyone's possible bias or anything else that can be perceived as a personal attack or personal commentary, or you are basically handing them ammo to use against you on a silver platter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned, in part, due to the latest complaint at ANI (permanent link) which also features yourself. It's obvious that my logged warning to you on Feb. 19 (diff) did not achieve the desired effect. Aggressive editing (though, granted, not one-sided) continues. WP:CIR problems continue. Seemingly impenetrable WP:IDHT problems related to which also continue, even in the aforementioned ANI discussion, despite the efforts of multiple admins to make you cognizant of this. I'm sorry, but editing in this way in such a fraught topic area isn't sustainable. If you wish to appeal this sanction, please skip the step of doing so on my talk page and go on to file it formally, instead.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBPIA4#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

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 of the above is unclear to you.  El_C 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a "final warning" for Nableezy, huh El_C? What an absolute joke. This site needs a new crop of admins, and ones like you should hang up the hat. It should basically be one of the written rules that administrators on this site are corrupt and will do whatever they can to protect the WP:UNBLOCKABLES and remove their opponents from the area, no matter how contrived the reasoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't even have offered Nableezy a warning. There is zero chance he can do anything to violate it. You cited my removal of a tag a week ago with a 7-1 consensus to block me, and ignored the fact that Nableezy was actively gaming 1RR for the duration of the tag. TimothyBlue was exactly right: You get the editors you deserve. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, I realize you're frustrated, but please don't personally attack me by calling me "corrupt." It doesn't really serve your best interests here, anyway. Also, the reasons for the sanction are noted in the above template. You cited my removal of a tag a week ago with a 7-1 consensus to block me — I did no such thing. Please don't make things up (unwittingly or otherwise). The point is that Nableezy had shown some self-reflection, whereas you did not. It really is that simple. El_C 15:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you cited Selfstudier's complaint about me removing an article-wide verifiability tag. You clearly missed the RfC with near unanimous consensus opposed to the tag. You also clearly didn't look at the talk page, where Nableezy has been bludgeoning every discussion, or note that Selfstudier was doing the same thing before this "complaint." And please, spare the BS about Nableezy's "self-reflection." No reasonable person would interpret any of Nableezy's comments as "self reflection." The fact that you went ahead and ignored this context, and all of the comments on the ANI thread, raises serious questions about you and how this site is operated, but someone other than me can explore them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, you do whatever you see fit, but, again, I did not cite Selfstudier in any capacity. And if you're gonna continue to insult me, I'd prefer that you cease from pinging me to your talk page. El_C 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, forgive me but this reasoning is as opaque as it is absurd. I believe your judgment in this case is thoroughly one-sided. You are rewarding an editor who is perhaps one of the most disruptive on the site, Nableezy, and certainly in the PIA area. TimothyBlue spent five minutes editing alongside Nableezy and quite literally left the site out of frustration. Even the editors who've disagreed with me in the past were stunned with his antics. But this has been going on for a long, long time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, I don't see it that way. I think I was quite clear and straight forward with my reasoning as stated. And, as mentioned, if Nableezy falters again, there will be consequences of an especial severity. I don't really have that much more to add beyond this at this time. El_C 15:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Falters again." Ha! What a joke. Thanks for keeping lookout. You get the editors you deserve. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, please consider undoing this close and letting an uninvolved admin take a look (as a few requested in the thread). In such a long dispute only sanctioning one of the editors is not a good look, especially as several of your comments to the unsanctioned party were of a joking / joshing nature. Finally, I think the experience of uninvolved admin Timothy dipping in to help in the topic was quite telling of the overall nature of the dispute, one which this topic ban does nothing to address. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, trying to defuse acrimony with humor is fine in my book. I remain uninvolved here, tried my best to get Wikieditor19920 to self-reflect, as Nableezy has done, but to no avail. Tried to have Wikieditor19920 provide evidence of "abuse" suffered by Timothy (diff+quote), also to no avail. I think my original logged warning (at the top the the page) alongside my sanction explanation speaks for themselves. I don't do third party AE appeals, but if Wikieditor19920 does decide to do so, you're of course welcome to make your case in any manner you see fit. PS: Timothy is not an admin. As well, this, according to him, was their first attempt to navigate an ARBPIA dispute. El_C 16:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only joke here is that Nableezy has exercised “self reflection.” El_C’s “original warning” was just another pretext — he warned me despite half of the comments on that page by Nableezy being blatant personal attacks, and he showed the same disregard for that behavior at ANI. El_C quite literally refuses to read the provided diffs, then claimed I was “evading” the question. This is an administrator who is being openly dishonest and will absolutely not review their own actions or even attempt to show some measure of being fair. Waste of time. 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, I asked for a diff+quote of the "abuse" you claimed Timothy had suffered on that article talk page, and I have done so more than once. Instead, you've evaded that request by simply linking to an aggregate list of diffs, which I made clear to you wasn't good enough. El_C 16:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, your response here shows how unbelievably irresponsible and unreasonable you are in using your admin powers. By that point I had literally I provided about 12-15 quotes and diffs of Nableezy’s quotes. You asked for more over a recent interaction, and I provided TB’s list of diffs from that page, and he characterized them in the same manner I did. So because I didn’t spoon feed them to you, and you couldn’t be bothered to look at the talk page, it’s my fault? Oh, and I guess it’s also TB’s fault for editing that page and he was asking for it, rather than starting with the “Hummus” page first. 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, I'm not sure I'm able to explain it anymore clearly (and it is only one facet of this, anyway), but I'll give it one more go: I asked you for a diff+quote, as in highlighting the most egregious "abuse" that you claimed Timothy had suffered in that article talk page. Instead, you provided me with an unfiltered, aggerate diff list, without a quote. I told you that this wasn't good enough, but instead of providing the evidence requested (or retracting), you simply repeated the same unfocused criticism. Anyway, the heart of the matter is that, unlike Nableezy, you seemed to have been impervious toward drawing any lessons or self-reflection from a whole host of problems, some covered at the ANI discussion, some not. Hoping my explanation resonates, this time. El_C 17:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, how many more quotes do you need? Are you capable of reviewing a talk page when multiple editors are pointing out a problem? Or do you just dole out punishments for not complying by with your arbitrary demands? Your explanation does not resonate because it is dishonest. 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notice how absurdly narrow this basis is. In light of that entire thread, and all the evidence provided of Nableezy’s behavior, El_C says it “just wasn’t enough” because there weren’t “quotes.” 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2600:1003:B857:49D9:5D0A:4C38:FD2A:A0BD (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, I'm acknowledging that I've seen your comment above, but otherwise, I'm inclined to disengage at this time. El_C 17:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a fundamentally unfair result, but if El_C is unwilling to revisit it then unfortunately there's not much else you can do. The wonderful nature of AE / DS... Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a mockery of any reasonable process or conduct guidelines. But you're right. And honestly, who cares? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see things are not going well for you right now. I'm sorry about that. I have a suggestion for you, take it or leave it at your own discretion.

First, look at your Watchlist. Expand it to 30 days or whatever. Next, scroll down and look at the edits that make you most mad. The ones that insert claims that are flat out wrong, based on some communist rag. Now: remove those articles from your watchlist. Unwatch them.

Don't look at those articles for six months. Every time you're tempted, say the following mantra: "I am a Wikipedian, this is a project for the ages and there is no deadline". Three times. Maybe five. Fuck (unwatches another three).

As I say, ignore or not. I think you're a decent person. Wrong (obviously!) but decent ;-) Guy (help! - typo?) 21:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JzG. Appreciate the kind words and thoughtful advice. I don't use a watch list, but I understand the gist of what you're saying. I think my time is more productively spent off-Wiki at the moment, but should I return in the future, I will certainly keep your guidance in mind! Best, Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, probably a good shout. The world is crazy right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Agreed. Thanks again and stay well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Agnes Scott College Seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source noticeboard now has a discussion as to the lack of expert status of Objective3000, and that therefore the references to the self-published webpages qfit.com, blackjackincolor.com, and blackjack-scams.com are in violation of WP:RS and WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#qfit.com,_blackjackincolor.com,_blackjack-scams.comAabcxyz (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, please. You will achieve nothing with such rants. If you got a problem with an administrator, use the appropriate route to address them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies My comment wasn't a "rant," offered my two cents on a questionable use of administrative power. An administrator who claims not to tone police one editor should not turn around and "tone police" the other. And the fact that the other user got off by scot free after telling an editor "I'll swear as much as I fucking like" is beyond the pale. Sorry to hear public talk pages aren't the appropriate venue to express concerns. Not that I have much faith in any other venue to apply WP:ADMINACCT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, did you even read the bold link in User talk:Govvy#Block? What does you're wired so badly, I think you need to get your head sorted have to do with swearing? Maybe don't let my previous sanctioning of you lead to confirmation bias of bad faith...? Just sayin'. El_C 01:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comment, and it's the inevitable result of allowing incivility to go unchecked. I think both editors acted poorly, and both should've been warned evenly. I think the unfair framing of Govvy "defending a slave trader" (which it's not at all clear he was doing) is why he got flattened with the ban hammer. But whatever! I'm not under the impression that my opinion here matters. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question as to the legitimacy of that interpretation and the manner in which it has been expressed could be seen in context of Govvy's actions on that page. Not to mention that Govvy had even written: you are effectively removing what I consider the better side of the man (diff). So, if editors argue that Govvy's position in that dispute has been effectively an apologist position (knowingly or not), that's arguably a valid albeit harsh WP:SPADE call out. But you're wired so badly, really? It's too much at this point. El_C 01:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Attacking an editor for taking a position on a page is not acceptable. WP:FOC?? Govvy helped bring the article to GA status, and is guilty only of pushing back on changes by making arguments you found disagreeable. You wrote off the conduct of one editor to sanction the one whose viewpoints you apparently think warrant personal attacks, much like how you handled the dispute with me and Nableezy. So no, you don't deserve any presumption of good faith for abusing your administrative authority repeatedly, and your double speak here just betrays how badly biased you are. Someone ought to desysop you, but I wouldn't expect any sort of actual accountability on this site. The only accountability is for having the "wrong" views, much like how I was banned from AP32 for criticizing an admin going around on talk pages calling the subject of an article a "Nazi apologist." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm beloved by ARBPIall. Softly softly, we tread. Anyway, please stop pinging me here (2 months later for some reason). And generally, please do not contact me in any way, for anything, except required notices. Appeal whatever, wherever. I'm no longer interested in engaging with you directly. For the record: unlike you, Nableezy was willing to bend. I don't really have much else to add right now. See ya. El_C 12:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bend?" Ha! At least you have a good sense of humor. I have no comment on that pursuant to my "topic ban," though I'm sure it will affirm how fairly and consistently you dole out punitive admin action. The last thing I would ever do is waste my time appealing BS, biased decisions on Wikipedia in whatever kangaroo court/circus is supposed to entertain such a request. See ya! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, your bluster is repetitive to me. As you know, you have 3 avenues of appeal: community, AE admins, and ARBCOM. If any and all of these venues amount to a kangaroo court/circus in your view, then [that's it, that the end of sentence]. El_C 13:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pitchfork-wielding mob (the "AN crowd"), a circle of wagons, and a smaller circle of wagons. Awesome! And thanks, but I actually didn't need further info from you. You are free to continue your no-contact policy. I have accepted that there are numerous areas of Wikipedia that are both thoroughly biased, completely against policy, and working exactly as intended. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. A pleasure as always, Wikieditor19920. El_C 13:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, "crazy old Wikieditor19920" at it again! Meanwhile, explain to me why an administrator was permitted to spew invectives against the subject of an article, and I was banned for it calling it out? Or better yet, explain how Nableezy "bended" by acting belligerently on ANI, prompting a proposal to topic ban him and turning a neutral editor like TimothyBlue against him, and yet you sit here and say that it was all my doing and I deserved a topic ban from the area (by you). I'm not going to "appeal" because I've been shown that the process is thoroughly broken, and I can't fix it. The people who could have no interest in doing so, and apparently are actively interested in leaving it broken. I'll contribute to the areas of this site that still capture my interest and are within the confines of this ban, and I'm not going to engage anymore in these corrupt partisan games that play out at noticeboards and the like. So thanks! And no, you don't need to reply. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're looking for. It was a rant. "Sorry to hear that", that kind of passive-aggressiveness doesn't work well on the internet, if it works anywhere, and it's not that talk pages aren't the right place to express concerns, it's that you weren't expressing concerns, and certainly not in an acceptable way. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits on Georgetown University! AW (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You remain topic banned per WP:AELOG, and this is a violation. Please be mindful of your ban, and if you would like to challenge it you should appeal it instead of violating it. Thank you, nableezy - 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nableezy, busy, busy as always! Keeping up the good fight, old pal? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to make me want to report you, this is the way. I gave you a polite notice so you could avoid being blocked. I wont next time. Take care. nableezy - 04:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to argue, but your politeness is disarming. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikieditor19920. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting full block summary to elaborate:

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia / community sanction enforcement: personal attacks @ Special:Diff/1193027357 in response to being reported for source misrepresentation and violation of community TBAN from AMPOL

Note that this is not an AE action, but is a community action, so any appeal should be forwarded to WP:AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

• I have removed your talk page access. Please use WP:UTRS for any unblock requests. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]