Jump to content

User talk:Unnamed anon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


List of Teen Titans episodes

[edit]

Thank you for adding that archive link to the reference on List of Teen Titans episodes. I wanted to bring to your attention that I corrected the syntax for the archive link here. You can find out more about the template syntax at Template:Cite_web#archive-url EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban discussion during block

[edit]

I understand the reasons for a topic ban, though I do want clarification on how broadly construed it would be, since I make plenty of constructive edits for LGBT BLPs or media featuring LGBT characters. I acknowledge my past disruption on transgender pages can be concerning. However, I also make productive edits on non-transgender LGBT pages, such as:

I also do generally productively edit media that contain LGBT categories, such as:

For transgender-related articles specifically:

    • There is also a long list of constructive edits I have to Across the Spiderverse, primarily to its plot summary, a movie with an LGBT controversy in its categories, though it should probably be noted that it basically comes down to split second shot of a trans flag in the background.

It could also be noted that for the most part, my edits on these LGBT-related pages have nothing to do with the LGBT aspect of these pages aside from the Celeste edit. Aside from the LGBT Simpsons page (where my issue was primarily FANCRUFT from poor sourcing for most of its characters that I eventually removed without major controversy) I don't have a history of disruption on homosexual/bisexual/asexual-related articles, only transgender-related articles, and even then my Gwen Stacy and Celeste edits (both transgender-related pages), and Alpharad (a BLP who uses he/they pronouns), I think would be considered fine. If possible, could the sanction only be given on transgender-related articles? Would I be fully unable to edit these articles because of their categories, or would I simply be given a notification before/after I edit and trigger a log that I edited that page? I see that even trivial violations can result in blocking (for example, correcting a spelling error on an article from which you are topic banned), and that would be a problem because a lot of, if not most of the TV or movie pages I edit uncontroversially do have LGBT (usually homosexual or bisexual) characters and/or categories. If I a topic ban, goes as far as making grammar fixes to pages of shows with homosexual couples, I don't think it's necessary at all. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 0xDeadbeef please see my comments above (or [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?[reply]

@Sawyer777: I no longer believe in that "sexual deviancy" phrase. I realized it was offensive and wrong shortly after making that edit. Please also see my comment with diffs above (or this diff if you can't find it) showing that a topic ban would be a net negative. I commonly edit pages of shows or movies with LGBT characters very productively and uncontroversially (as in fixing grammar or sources), and occasionally LGBT BLPs (such as with requesting or adding sources, or removing original research). I'm reading that I can't even fix grammar or sources on pages of that sort with a topic ban, which would be a net negative since my edits to LGBT-related pages, with 4 exceptions, 3 of which were long ago, are generally productive. My edits on pages with LGBT categories that were productive outnumber the times they were disruptive. At the very least, I do not have a history at homosexual-related disputes, only transgender-related ones. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your change of views, and i understand that you've made many constructive edits on LGBT-related articles - for this reason, i am empathetic. however, there are millions (literally) of other articles for you to work on if you're topic-banned, and doing exactly that without resorting to BATTLEGROUND behavior & stereotyping of other editors is the best way to get a topic ban lifted. moreover, many many many editors have made productive edits in the areas they were later topic-banned from, because positive contributions do not cancel out ongoing disruptive behavior when the community is considering a TBAN. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: thank you for providing the info that a topic ban won't prevent me from editing movie and tv pages if they happen to feature LGBT characters. I was under the impression that a topic ban would prevent me from editing an article altogether if the word LGBT was even mentioned once, or if it had an LGBT category, but if all I'm unable to do on said articles is edit sections or sentences specifically about sexuality/gender, then I fully accept a topic ban. I have no intention of editing categories or articles that directly relate to what being LGBT is about, and I agree that forcing me to not partake in article discussions surrounding gender and sexuality for the time being is for the better.

I do want some more clarification before my topic ban is likely imposed. For example, would I be unable to edit the personal life section for BLPs who happen to be LGBT but are notable for other prospects? I listed above a time where I've made constructive edits to the personal life section on a bisexual BLP to fix grammar and request sourcing that he had moved homes, and generally that section is where it is stated on a BLP that they happen to be LGBT. I assume I can edit the personal life section, but not sentences stating the BLP is LGBT?

Similarly, if a fictional character happens to be LGBT, would I still be able to edit the page normally aside from anything directly related to their sexuality? If I need to move a sentence in a plot summary around for grammar reasons, would I be unable to do so if the sentence happens to mention a same-sex relationship, given that moving content is essentially deleting and re-adding content in the same edit? Unnamed anon (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there does turn out to be consensus for a topic ban from the Gender and Sexuality topic area, I would strongly encourage you to not make edits—including copyedits—to articles about persons or characters who are LGBT; doing so seems likely to violate the topic ban. WP:TBAN states that a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic (italics added), and WP:BMB clarifies that The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrangeans: I don't think it's a good idea to bar me from editing BLP or fictional characters who just so happen to be LGBT if their sexuality isn't even a main talking point. For example, the asexual BLP I helped verify the name for, Jaiden Animations, only talks about her sexuality in a single video, and is primarily notable for her youtube channel talking about video games. The same goes for bisexual youtuber Alpharad and lesbian actress Kate McKinnon, they're primarily notable for youtube and acting; Alpharad also rarely talks about his sexuality and I had honestly forgotten Kate McKinnon was lesbian until today, and both are famous for entertainment that appeals to anybody. I had also forgotten to mention this, but earlier this year I made an uncontroversial move request for an asexual character in a cartoon, who is who is primarily notable because he's a main character in a cartoon and there were zero disputes about him being asexual. Again, net positive when it isn't a transgender related discussion or when I'm not actively talking about sexuality for a BLP or character. But the rest of the characters' and BLP's pages shouldn't be blocked for me too if I have shown almost nothing but productive editing there, especially if I never talk about their sexuality
    • There are only 3 homosexual related disputes where I can recall and that I became mildly disruptive, feel free to tell me if you find more. The recent essay edit where I wrongly went through with another user's talk page comment even though I didn't actually agree with their comment; fictional character Will Byers, where my edits were specifically about his sexuality and I won't defend; and the LGBT Simpsons article.
    • As for bisexual disputes, I can't find any, and my only asexual dispute was regarding Jaiden Animations having an LGBT category since, at the time, I didn't know that people commonly considered asexual LGBT, and stopped after two edits and a discussion that ended with zero fighting. In this case, I properly followed the 3RR rule by taking it to discussion after 2 reverts, and had a normal discussion that ended without hassle. The only thing that sticks out was the offensive term that I have since taken back.

I'm not going to pretend I didn't have homosexual-related disputes in the past now that I have found them, but my tendentious editing is primarily on transgender topics. I agree to a topic ban on transgender-related pages, but not a sexuality-related ban because my edits to those pages tends to be completely unrelated to their sexuality. Often BLPs or characters are interesting to me for other reasons but happen to be homo/bi/asexual, and I don't think those should be barred for me if I generally don't touch sentences talking about their sexualities. If the sexuality ban is enforced, only forbid me from sections or sentences specifically regarding BLP/characters' sexuality, but otherwise let me edit the rest of the pages normally. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef: I do accept that I need some sort of topic ban; likely indefinite, but appealable after at least six months. The reason I am still talking is because I want to get clarification on which pages I have previously productively edited I would no longer be able to. My primary interest is in movies/shows/games/books, or the BLPs working on them, and many, especially recent ones, happen to feature queer characters that may eventually get spun into their own articles; or the people working on them happen to be homo/bi/asexual, sometimes without prior knowledge that they are even queer, and I edit sentences that have nothing to do with their sexuality since I don't know or care about their sexuality. @Simonm223: I see here that many users have been topic banned specifically on transgender topics, rather than both gender and sexuality, which is why I'm open for a specific transgender topic ban. Unnamed anon (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • I initially removed this section because I wanted to move past my disruptive behavior that led to my topic ban. I decided to add this back for context for when I make my topic ban appeal soon. If I accidentally pinged any users , I apologize. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GENSEX Topic Ban agreement

[edit]

I was initially going to let the block stay for the week, but now that editors at this ANI thread are suggesting a topic ban based off of incomplete evidence since users need to see both ANI and my talk page, and I feel the need to directly partake in the ANI to list my defenses instead of constantly pinging users who comment there. My block was deserved because I had a BATTLEGROUND behavior, but I have since cooled off and forgiven all of the users I had said behavior towards, and believe that all of us can work constructively together. As mentioned at ANI, this measure is being suggested at a point of time where the subject of the suggested sanction is not able to explain themself. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) (initially an unblock request, dropped to prevent wasting admins' time since it's only a week long block and I accepted the topic ban)[reply]

@Cullen328: how do you feel about this? The user seems to understand why they were blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, at this point I prefer to let the discussion at ANI about a topic ban play out before I make detailed remarks. The one thing that I will say now is that I am very concerned about this editor's tendency to waste other editors time. If another administrator wants to unblock sooner, then I will neither support nor oppose that. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: @Ivanvector: I'd like to remedy my time wasting tendency by supporting my own topic ban to GENSEX pages, thereby ending the ANI discussion. There's already a very clear consensus, and I can deal with staying away from copyedits BLPs or fictional characters that happen to be LGBT for 6 months. I am still concerned that I won't be able to edit pages regarding tv/movies/games/books if they contain a few LGBT characters (as most recent media does have LGBT representation), or if a BLP or fictional character I am interested in comes out as queer after already being invested in their page and/or I am interested in a different aspect of them and didn't know they were queer, but per Raladic's comment, I'm apparently still allowed to edit at least the former as long as I stay away from affecting sentences or sections regarding LGBT. If I don't get into any more disruption, I'll likely try to appeal it in six months, sometime on or after November 21, 2024.
One more question since this is my first sanction: If I am in an apartment complex with at least a hundred others living there, I believe it's the same IP address for everybody in an apartment. I have no control over anybody in the apartment's edits, so if somebody in my apartment vandalizes an LGBT BLP, I'm worried it would be wrongly linked back to me and unfairly be used to block me or deny me an appeal. How would CheckUser be used to verify that an IP vandal in my apartment complex is not me? Unnamed anon (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general exceptions to topic bans are covered at WP:BANEX. My view is pretty much the same as Raladic, and supported by my own past experiences: if you are topic-banned from gender and sexuality then you cannot edit any page that is about those topics, or any specific content in a more general article which covers those topics. In your example I think you would be fine editing general details on an article about a fictional character who also happens to be queer, you would not be okay editing anything specifically about them being queer. If it's a character who is primarily known for their gender/sexuality (I'm struggling to think of an example) then I'd steer clear. Always err on the side of caution - accidental violations are treated as seriously as deliberate ones. Someone once said in one of these discussions that you should make it so that if someone were to say you were violating the sanction, everyone else would think them a fool. I believe that's good advice. You also can always ask questions about things you want to edit before you edit them.
As for checkuser: I can't give you much detail on what goes on inside the tool, but as reassurance let me say that we have millions of editors who edit from shared connections like university campuses, apartment complexes, shared housing, public networks, and so on, to the point that you'd expect to see many accounts with similar or even identical technical signatures in any check, and in fact we do, but if there was an epidemic of false positives you'd likely have heard about it. There are other data points we consider besides IP address, and we're very good at separating the wheat from the chaff. I wouldn't worry about it at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Alright, thank you for alleviating all of my concerns that I can edit general details on these articles. Those were the only reasons I opposed a Tban, but I'm no longer concerned. You can go ahead and topic ban me and close the ANI. If all goes well, I'll appeal in six months. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread is still open, but in the meantime of my block I accept my topic ban and would like for somebody to close the ANI, involved or not, so that nobody wastes Arbcom's time if the ANI section gets archived without official closure. I don't know if there's any technical aspect to a topic ban aside from blocks for edits in violation of the Tban, but if I do violate the Tban the technical aspects can be imposed. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I see you unarchived the ANI thread. Formal closure or not, I'm still treating it as a consensus for a GENSEX topic ban since almost everybody supported it. As discussed with other users, general details on tv and movie pages that happen to feature lgbt characters, or general details on said characters, are fine as long as I don't touch any queer aspects. Since you are uninvolved and an admin, you can close it and re-archive if you want. I will appeal in six months if all goes well. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) please note that your WP:GENSEX topic ban is logged as involuntary and indefinite. I would advise playing it as safe as possible, since individual admins have varying interpretations of "broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for closing it. When you say it is indefinite, is this still appealable within the usual six-month window, assuming I can show that I will not act in the way that got me topic banned? Unnamed anon (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that since no limit was placed on when you can appeal, you can do so right now. However, I would strongly recommend against doing so for at least six months. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but an appeal before six months is very unlikely to be successful. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And yes, I have absolutely zero plans for my appeal to be right now; not when the consensus was very clear. I would prefer abiding by community norms (such as editing productively on other topics for at least six months) if an appeal has any chance of being successful. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan to me :) see you on the other side. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on One Piece (2023 TV series)

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page One Piece (2023 TV series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 04:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to And Then There Were None

[edit]

I'm sorry to have to say that your edits - even if made in good faith - are consistently poor and have become increasingly disruptive. You have been asked to make edits one by one, for discussion, but you have ignored that request, and the vast majority of your contributions are having to be reverted or re-written by other editors.

The plot section was when you arrived in an excellent state, and, although improvements of course can always be made, your rapid sequence of fundamental changes mostly made without discussion has significantly degraded it. You are consistently missing every nuance of the carefully-drafted existing description, and do not appear to have a good enough knowledge of the text to be able to summarise it at all accurately. Specific concerns include re-writing everything in American English, adding factually incorrect information ("has a gunshot wound in his forehead", "they initially suspect Vera", "the remaining eight suspect", "believing him to be the killer"), completely misunderstanding legal procedure and terminology ("that the law couldn't incriminate [sic]", that a judge can sentence to death even defendants that "the jury believed to be innocent"), adding unnecessary verbiage (the confession is written "by the killer", a "drowned" body is washed up), repeatedly and without explanation removing text after reasoned reversion ("crudely dressed in the attire of a judge"), and generally poor grammar and clunky phraseology ("explanation on [sic] who", "decided to commit mass murder against other murderers who were untouched"). You are forcing other editors to repeatedly waste time fixing these and other errors.

I have felt obliged to revert the text back to the last good version, and have to ask you to refrain from editing in this disruptive manner. If you want to continue contributing to the article, please respect the time and edits of other users, make small incremental changes with reasoned edit summaries, and use the talk page for proposals of more extensive changes. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: I apologize for the mistakes, I'd like to respond to as many of your concerns as possible:

1. The copy of the book I read a few years ago was an American version that did include periods in Mr. and Mrs., so I did not know that Mr and Mrs did not have periods in British English. I made sure to not add back the American English, aside from one mistake in forgetting the Mr in front of Justice Wargrave.

2. My thought process on the Vera sentence was that the chair being upright was why the police ruled her out as the killer despite her being the last victim, which I felt was a notable missing plot detail. Saying that they initially suspected her, alongside the other mistakes you note, was because it had been a while since I read the book. When that IP pointed out my mistakes, I re-read the book, and the information from re-reading is where the changes since that IP's edits are coming from.

3. The clunky phraseology is something that I was fixing throughout writing; the example you give was changed to "commit mass murder against killers that the law couldn't incriminate" in the latest revision before the IP started editing. I appreciate you pointing out when something I wrote was clunky, but that specific sentence is one I had been fixing throughout multiple edits and was no longer accurate unless you also have a problem with the more recent wording - which if you do have a problem with the more recent wording of that sentence, let me know.

4. On the topic of that sentence, I found "a scheme to mete out what he deemed justice where the law could do nothing", to be fairly clunky and verbose, and didn't even really explain what Wargrave had planned which is why I changed it based off of what I had read.

5. The way I interpreted your edit summary of "Some useful thoughts which could be added back one by one, for discussion as needed" was that the issue you had with my edits was regarding the American English, (which if you notice I did not add back, as I said earlier), and that you were fine with the plot changes, with discussion as needed if they were challenged again (in this case, right now).

6. Respectfully, I have to disagree that the plot summary was in an "excellent state" beforehand. As I briefly mentioned earlier was extremely verbose in many areas; I don't think describing how a fake-dead Wargrave is dressed is a notable plot detail for example. I also can't seem to find where you reason that it's a description worth keeping; the edit where you added it back was about me adding American English and didn't mention that sentence at all. Likewise, "asks if any of the "prisoners at the bar" wish to offer a defence" is an extremely redundant sentence that is already covered by the previous one.

7. The plot summary was also missing details in other areas; for example, "three guests search the island"… which three? Likewise, simply "they can find no satisfactory explanation" doesn't say what they're looking to explain, and adding "a message from the killer" in the last paragraph makes things immediately clear. It's fine that you disagree with my specific changes, but the plot summary really was not in a good, let alone "excellent", state at all.

8. If you look through most of my edits to the page that I had forgotten edit summaries for, most of them were simply condensing sentences and paragraphs in an effort to get the word count down. I figured that merging some sentences would be uncontroversial, but I guess I was wrong.

9. For one the few times I added instead of combining/subtracting, saying Armstrong's body was "drowned" was based directly off of what I read, where the police list the cause of death for everyone. It also makes it clear that he wasn't killed in a different way, such as the fall, or being stabbed then dumped into the sea. Armstrong and Mr Rogers' causes of deaths were notably missing from the plot summary, so I'm not sure why you have a problem with me adding Armstrong's cause of death.

10. I'd also like to respond to your statement that the "vast majority of my contributions are having to be reverted or re-written by other editors", because aside from your recent wholesale revert, it doesn't seem like a "vast majority". In the past week, the only editors on the page were you and one IP user, then I came in two days ago. The IP's reverts to my edits were only to genuine plot mistakes, like my mistakes of Armstrong or Vera being the primary suspects. Until now, your reverts to my edits only reverted the American English changes, and a single time when you removed the guests' belief that Owen doesn't exist. My changes to grammar or phraseology were never reverted aside from the one time where you gave only touted American English as the issue in a wholesale revert.

11. It's fine that you disagree with my edits, but I'd like for you to explain how I'm being disruptive, because I'm genuinely curious. I'm actively re-reading the book to verify plot information, I'm not re-adding any of the minor details or mistakes removed by you or the IP, I'm not acting tendentious on what are minor phrasing changes to a plot summary, and right now I'm clearly showing you that I am willing to build a consensus.

I appreciate you coming here with your concerns, let me know if my responses clear anything up. Because I realized some of those mistakes when the IP reverted a few edits, I decided to borrow the book again and re-read it, and some of the verbiage is based off of the copy I'm reading, which may have its wording slightly changed from what you're reading. I also have to apologize for this wall of text; because you have a lot of problems with my edits, I feel they each need to be addressed in detail. Thanks. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding here. Following the suggestion of the IP editor, let's continue to work from where we are. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR: explaining why now-contested edits were made in cases where I forgot an edit summary and apologizing for genuine plot mistakes.
Would be worth linking here the continuation to this discussion on my talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Twitter

[edit]

Hey, Unnamed anon. I wanted to follow-up on my reply to your moratorium suggestion with the following from MORATORIUM: A moratorium is a general restriction on editors proposing a specific change that has previously been proposed and rejected by the community. Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community. [...] However, moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time (though not at any place). The duration of a moratorium should be balanced against the likelihood that consensus will change with time (or new information will develop). An existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so. (Emphasis mine)

To my knowledge, there has not been much or any discussion regarding if Twitter and X are the same or different services. However, if you know of discussions where it has been repeatedly discussed on Talk:Twitter or related talk pages, then please provide them and I will be willing to review my response to your proposal. It is possible I am not seeing what you have seen. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V: In the previous requested move before the original moratorium, plenty of users were discussing whether Twitter and X were different services. The RfC 5 months ago that you were referring to was also in response to a Twitter under Elon Musk being moved to X (social network, and a huge mess on whether to consider the Twitter page as either a defunct, rebranded, or replaced website. That came only shortly after another proposal to treat them as separate sites in May. When the site was first rebranded in 2023, there were also constant changes to say that Twitter no longer exists (I can't find the edit right now, but somebody cited a "Twitter obituary" from CNN during that time). The proposals to treat them as separate sites are not as numerous as the move proposals, but they have become noticeably high in recent months. It also feels like a loophole to the current moratorium that goes against its purpose of constant discussions surrounding Twitter's status. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that does meet the criteria of repeatedly discussed that I mentioned earlier. I don't feel fully convinced that there is an issue, but I will drop my oppose. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unnamed_anon&oldid=1259394685"