governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
Now I know! If I need it again do I just ask at page protection? I've requested pp before but it never occured to me that it can be applied to talk pages. Knitsey (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Liliana. I've now had to 1) warn you for no-summary rollbacking a comment that had first been removed by the person it criticized, 2) revert this utterly gratuitous shit-stirring, and 3) hat these forum-y political comments, all at AN/I; the first and second were in particularly frought and sensitive threads, at that. AN/I is a noticeboard where users dealing with serious or chronic disruption go to report their issues to administrators and to those non-admin community members who have something useful to add. If you continue to disrupt that process I will p-block you from the noticeboard. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's been seven and a half months, and I haven't gotten my goodie bag yet. Did you mean 6 to 8 months, or should I file a complaint against the Transfem Cabal's Goodie Bag Department? – dudhhrtalkcontribssheher21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not only did you not improve the article, but you also have a COI? ok, sure"
"ISSUES. NOT. ADDRESSED"
Please use summaries to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes, and without being intentionally abrasive or shouting. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I apologize for the response on my talk page. I did not mean to offend you when referring to you in the DRV as the "appellant" or using the "their" possessive pronoun. When editing on the project I never use gender specific he/she pronouns to refer to other editors because I do not want to misgender. I see now that it is important to you so I will remember if I we find ourselves in the same threads in the future. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For canvasing and battleground behavior related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M43 (Durban) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F102 highway (Nigeria), you have been blocked for a week. I particularly find the attempted retaliation here to be beyond the pale. This block was almost and indef because of it. Since it is based on private information, this block counts as a Checkuser block. I am willing to share the evidence of canvasing with any CU who is reviewing the block. Additionally, the evidence has been sent to arbcom-en. You may appeal this block directly to arbcom or via the unblock template. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi18:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't put into words how happy I was to see you back
I am so happy you are back. Wikipedia is blessed by your presence!
Ah well, September. Noone had objected to these until now, but that might have been caused by a lack of attention. (Re-)adding the disputed content without a citation and apparently without the article content supporting it either (such as in Special:Diff/1184699703?) may perhaps not be the best approach, but I may also be overlooking something. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to inform your decision on this edit [1]. During the spate of sock assault on the article, I placed that notice, not one of the socks. I don't mind whatever you want to do with this, but: sock placed PROD on talk page, I removed it (misplaced though it was), and added the tag to indicate that someone else had already PRODed and was challenged. I felt the benefit was that the article could not be PRODed again, and would need to go to the AfD process. I respect your decisions, and I don't mean to keep you from continuing improvements. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that it's not that I feel in anyway personally harmed by an association with a sock. Everybody knows that's not true. I meant to propose whether or not the 'Old PROD' tag is beneficial to preventing further harm to the article. Again, I repect your decisions. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LilianaUwU. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Good Luck. Message added 07:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hi Liliana :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Also I'm cool with playing Mario Kart again whenever you feel like it Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. I hope that you and I find ourselves working together in the new year! Lightburst (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your comments on Tryptofish's neutral vote over at the Clovermoss RFA: I found them hurtful. This is a great project and it likely needs both of us even if we occasionally disagree. In spite of this I do really hope that we get to work together and that we learn to respect for each other. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
I don't know what causes you to think that "At least you didn't oppose, unlike a certain someone..." is a helpful comment to make while badgering an oppose at somebody's request for adminship, but please don't do stuff like this. It's just pointless flamebait and has about a zero percent chance of causing any reasonable conversation to happen. If somebody makes a comment that annoys you enough to warrant bringing it up on-wiki, I would recommend doing what I do, and writing a message to them about it on their talk page (in fact, I am doing that right now). Or, at the very least, bringing it up on the talk page for the RfA -- there's really no point to being rude to people and subtweeting them in the middle of what's supposed to be a discussion about the candidate first and foremost. jp×g🗯️08:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello LilianaUwU, we need experienced volunteers.
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
You seem to have put a POV tag on Volkssturm. It would be useful if you gave more detail on the talk page on the specific phrases, paragraphs or sections that you felt were problematic. (Hohum@) 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, the most egregious phrase (On some occasions, members of the Volkssturm showed tremendous courage and a determined will to resist, more so even than soldiers in the Wehrmacht., the very reason I put the tag) was removed. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)19:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker){{POV/doc}} states The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion[...]the tag may be removed by any editor. Regardless of how obvious the issue might be, you should always bring it up on the talk page. QueenofHearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 05:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I share your view that the NYT is massively overrated as a US paper of record, but this is likely a problem of the English-language media ecosystem that is upstream of Wikipedia, the kind that would take a mountain of peer-reviewed criticism to resolve (and even then would probably draw a lot of tendentious back and forth). If you can find it, I highly recommend My Times: A Memoir of Dissent by John L. Hess, a former journalist there that paints a less-than-shining portrait of their editorial policies. signed, Rosguilltalk19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, you've been mentioned in a thread at WP:AN. (For unclear reasons, the person who posted it didn't think it was appropriate to notify you; this post is to rectify their oversight.) --JBL (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spiteful message above notwithstanding, thank you for at least trying to deal with such an obvious problem. It's too bad that the community didn't have the stomach for actually doing anything. But the trout above will be useful for next time as evidence that Lightburst's 'can't we all just get along' schtick is insincere, so one day you may yet be vindicated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the comments of others
Please do not edit the comments of others on article talk pages unless it is for removing trolling, vandalism, or unless you have the editor's permission. [2] The guideline for this is very clear. XeCyranium (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XeCyranium: yes. As I said in my edit summary, WP:BLPNAME and MOS:GENDERID apply here through WP:BDP. Benedict's former name is non-notable, and per the second paragraph of GENDERID should not be included on any page, including talk pages. We treat former names of trans and non-binary people as a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason then that it doesn't include talk pages within the pages it's referring to in said second paragraph? All of these seem to be referring to article space. XeCyranium (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that BLP didn't apply to details of a deceased individual unless the details are "contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends" which from what I can tell this isn't. XeCyranium (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it more generally applies to people who died in contentious circumstances. Examples include suicide, homicide, or an unexpected death after an alleged assault. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty clearly not what it says. It applies to the details of murders/suicides that could cause distress for the family/friends, it does not simply apply to anybody dead who's ever been the victim of a violent crime. XeCyranium (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this recently closed RfC on the current consensus interpretation of BDP. Specifically in the close The community strongly supports the position that WP:BLP should, by default, extend to deceased people for a certain amount of time after their deaths. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now that's something different, shame nobody's updated any of the relevant pages, but if it does apply to non-contentious but private details regarding dead people for some yet to be determined time after their death then it seems you did the right thing indeed. Hopefully there will be an actual set timeframe in the future, but either way if that's the newest version of the policy then that seems fair to leave it as it is. It still would have been preferable if the editors had linked to that in the first place. XeCyranium (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify where in GENDERID it forbids the mentioning of former names that have been reported in reliable sources on article talk pages? By my reading, you're being overzealous. XeCyranium (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think of you as a reliable, sensible editor so I'm bewildered why you thought it was appropriate to edit an archived AFD discussion as you did with this edit. This is just not done unless in the rare occasion where there is some objectionable content and even then it would be redacted or struck out. But we don't edit archived discussions on noticeboards or archived deletion discussions. I don't see anything here in the remarks that warrants removal. Do you have an explanation? Please do not do this again. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Welp - there were also BLP problems with that "popular culture" section. Maybe it can be brought back if it can be written in a neutral manner with due weight.
AwesomeAasim04:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your position on the Nex Benedict article. I completely agree that the actual cause of death is obvious, but as it has been (somewhat ridiculously) ruled a suicide, I do think the inclusion is appropriate. Sometimes simple formalism is just for the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
I don't get why you deleted this comment. I had a point, of course, but it wasn't about frustration with the system or meant to disrupt. Not the most necessary thing I've said, but in a talk about TPA revocation and ruder words, it seemed relevant, at least. Anyway, no big deal, just curious. If you'd rather delete this than answer it, that's fine, too. I'll wonder quietly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the burial I refer to happened back in the day, well before the shitshow you might remember from last year. And I found your section by "stalking" Black Kite, not you. We were trying to get a dead and late footballer posted to RD. That was in AN, not AN/I, but this section was close enough (in contribution history) to pique my interest. You creating it was just a coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LilianaUwU. First of all, I wanted to apologize for getting too hot-headed in the discussion with you. My edit where I responded to you was uncalled for and I am sorry for it. I wrote it as a hothead and definitely should not have done that.
If you are up to it, I would like to continue the discussion, but in a calm and cool manner, discussing/answering any of your concerns. Specifically, I would like to discuss/answer why you may think I am targeting you.
So, I made a mistake and did not add a contentious topic notice to the article right after it was made. That was my mistake. I recognized my mistake coincidentally off of the accusation of WP:OWN on the AfD nomination. {Quick reference note, GenevieveDEon and myself had a discussion (where I was definitely too hot-headed), but we have worked it out and the accusation is no longer a concern to them and I do not consider it an accusation any further.} Following my seeing the AfD nomination/wording of it, I realized that I forgot to add the contentious topic notice to the article, in which case I did. Per WP:CTOPICS, specifically, the "Awareness of contentious topics" section, editors who edit in the CTOPIC for the first time or who have yet to receive a CTOPIC notice should be given an alert regarding it. In suit, I did that, alerting not just you, but every editor in the AfD as well as any editor who had edited the article. A few already had the climage change CTOPIC notice, but anyone who did not yet have it received one.
I wasn't intentionally targeting you or any other editor. I made a mistake by not adding it in the first place. When I corrected that mistake, the timing made it appear that I was targeting you. I hope that clears up the timeline and mistake I made. If you do have a question regarding it though, or you still feel I am targeting you, please ask or let's discuss it. I want to discuss and figure this out in a non-hotheaded way. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... again, sending a bunch of CTOP notices to people who have !voted to delete/merge your article wasn't a very good call. If anything, someone else should've sent those. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, it isn't "my" article. Editors do not own articles. Secondly, technically, I was sending the notice to people who basically agreed with me. If anything, I was closer to canvassing than targeting, since I too did a formal !vote of "Merge", meaning the CTOPIC notice was sent to people who have views similar to mine (you included). Basically, timing was the whole issue from what I can tell. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope I'm not adding to anything rough you've been experiencing. I'm commenting under your talk page only because we've interacted before along with your familiarity with a banned user, and nothing else; I'm a little uncomfortable talking to "strangers" over heavy matters. If you suggest I notify a more appropriate user I will oblige.
You're familiar with Chris troutman and was involved in the AN/I discussion leading to his infefinite ban. Almost a month ago Certes made a thank you comment that briefly engaged what I believe is conspiracy and defended his comments. I took notice and just made a reply; maybe it was better that I didn't, but I get really uptight about any form of speculativism or conspiracy and I believe some counter-response has to be made to cut whatever bad influence could come from it. Regardless if I should've or not, I don't believe Certes's comment was known to anyone else so I needed to tell someone about this. I wish you a good rest of your day. Carlinal (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liliana, I am sorry that you have been troubled with this matter. Although I have now retired from Wikipedia, I noticed Carlinal's message as I occasionally check for pings and felt obliged to respond. Both contributions have now been reverted. Certes (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Matthew Crooks
If this was a non-political event he absolutely would not have an article. Lots of editors fail to understand our BLP policies as evidenced by the AfD discussions. It's shocking how many editors fail to understand BLP and more interested in treating Wikipedia like a tabloid. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the intrusion, but I can't help agreeing--I think the definition of a reliable source should be updated to include "at least two weeks old." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially disagreed and thought just avoiding breaking news would be fine, but after giving it more thought and seeing edits like this: [3] there is clearly far more benefit to the project than any harm by waiting 2 weeks to update articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone was going to say that; India is an extremely multilingual country where English is mostly a lingua franca (and Hindi has a strong claim to that status as well). The US is easily the most populous country of the core anglosphere. Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked this account for a commonplace promotional username violation. In my view, trying to argue that this username is hateful as opposed to simply a promotional username is unnecessarily divisive when a straightforward outcome is clear. The account is indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of those topics on and off-Wikipedia, and I have no hesitation to express my personal opposition and indignation off Wikipedia. I have been a supporter of trans people's rights and dignity ever since I first met a trans person at age 17 back in 1969 in New York's East Village. I am not a trans person but am an unwavering supporter of their rights and dignity. I subsequently lived in San Francisco for many years and continued my support which continues to today. But the Neutral point of view is among our most important guiding principles. Dealing with these issues neutrally, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, is by far the best way to respond here on Wikipedia. Non-neutral POV pushers reveal themselves and are blocked for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LTA case page started for your "bilateral relations troll"
I saw in one of your 2023 edit summaries a remark about the "bilateral relations troll". I believe that same person is described in the new case page which I started: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Demographics vandal. The sustained interest in Romani diaspora combined with a fascination in race/ethnicity/demographics was the common thread I was following. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BRT guy is active today.[4] The BRT person may simply have intersections of interest with Demographics vandal. I need to spend time and sift through contributions. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who detests Trump and everything he stands for, your comments appear inappropriate. If you are having difficulty commenting on, or editing articles pertaining to subjects about which you have obviously strong feelings, I suggest you refrain and move on to other topics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only opinion is about the article's notability... which has nothing to do with my opinion on Trump. Meanwhile, I think Sofeshue got off extremely lightly considering their use of "its" to refer to a trans person. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ASFAIK we have articles on every confirmed assassination attempt on a US president including the two on Gerald Ford, one of which never involved a shot being fired. You are of course free to send the page to AfD, but as an experienced editor, I believe it would be snow closed as a Keep and you would be fortunate not to end up being trouted. I have issued a level III warning to Sofeshue with no previous warnings. That's a pretty sharp rebuke. If there is any further commentary of a similar nature I would likely indef them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page stalker here - @Ad Orientem, While I don't agree with the presentation of the otherstuff argument here, a person trying to kill a (former) world leader is justly so relevant in its own right. Doesn't need Gerald to back it up.
Of late, I've been seeing Liliana's more recent comments, including those Ad Orentium has referenced, and I'm frankly concerned about the vulgar nature of them. Profanity is not always uncivil, (hell, I myself use profanity in a tone of jest on this site), and the general attitude this user has shown seems to be helpful to the encyclopedia. But there are concerns. See here at an LGBT -> LGBTQ category renaming discussion, where she is quoted as saying "Again, the article should've remained at LGBT, so don't fuck this up further." in response to a renaming bid, which characterized the nom's (User:HouseBlaster) suggestion as a "fuck up". Not very civil-seeming to me. User:Omnis Scientia did reprimand her for this, so due process has occurred. (I don't want this to look like I'm digging stuff up to incriminate this user without reason) But, this behaviour is concerning. Pair this with Ad Orentium's concerns as spoken on above, I don't think this can be boiled down to just an isolated case.
Liliana seems like a wholesome, helpful contributor overall, but I can't help but notice some of her more recent comments have been sub-par to the civility policy. I think it might be constructive to take the dog for a walk and come back with a fresh mind, no?
This doesn't affect my physical ability to edit (I edit from my computer 99% of the time), but this is taking a huge toll on my mental health. Expect me to be even less active, and maybe even more short tempered. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)09:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey, I encourage taking a break, period. If you expect yourself to be snappy towards other editors because of a phone getting busted, the best thing to do for yourself and Wikipedia is to have some time off. Remember, on Wikipedia, civilityisrequired, notwithstanding anything else including the mishaps of personal life.
A break provides more time to collect your thoughts, focus on self-care, meditate, to do whatever it is that may improve your state-of-being. I suggest listening to ambient music, like Minecraft–VolumeAlpha, or the works of BrianEno, to relax.
Hi, your userpage.js popped up in Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications. First off, let me salute you for the creative abuse of conventions on display there. ;)
Joking aside, please apppend <noinclude>/userpage.js</noinclude>, this will fix the DISPLAYTITLE issue. Lastly, display:none does not work, this behavior has been suppressed since 2013. You can use font-size:0 instead to achieve the desired effect. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? No! That would defeat the purpose of transcluding.
Just append the string "<noinclude>/userpage.js</noinclude>" right after "UwU</span>''" and before the closing "}}".
I've put a (slightly tweaked) ready-to-use sample at /custom DISPLAYTITLE. Just copy the source of the page to your userpage.js, then blank/delete /custom DISPLAYTITLE.
BTW: <templatestylessrc="User:LilianaUwU/userpage.css"/> is redundant, your userpage.css is applied to your userpages by default. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought we had a truce? That was the third ANI you started about me - I am not counting the others you just voted in. I have used the trout button on this page twice before so this message will just be one to hopefully restore the truce. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to reply to everyone who commented, although I appreciate you couldn't have known that.
Why did you accuse me of bludgeoning rather than simply telling me that you weren't interested in discussing your comment further? The accusation does imply bad faith on my part. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your second point is compelling. As for the first, these bias complaints are handled as described in current consensus item 61 unless abusive in tone, insulting, etc. This one wasn't that. Just for future ref. Thanks. ―Mandruss☎06:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
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.
Hi there, I saw that you dropped a tag on the Newfoundland and Labrador–Quebec border article, claiming that the article has an "obvious Labrador bias". I understand this might be a sensitive issue in Quebec, but I tried to use the widest range of sources I could mine and that's the conclusion I have from them, as far as I remember, and besides that's your only edit to the article. You are welcome to provide any sources that are still not in the article and that are reliable enough to be included. We can work on that. Drop them here or in the article talk page. In any case, ping me when you answer me, OK? Thanks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just trolling. You must realize that, right? Like you must have known that the discussion was not going to go your way—both because you had no policy-based reason for your proposal, and because you've tried and failed with similar stunts at RSN again and again and again. In fact, this kind of tilting at windmills makes up the vast majority of your edits to RSN.
So I came here to talk about whether I need to p-block you or TBAN you or something, and then I see your most recent edit to this page is to revert criticism of that same stunt as "fascist apologism". Which is a pretty serious personal attack against NicolausPrime and/or Ad Orientem that I could just block you for, but I don't really think that'd fix the problem, because it's indicative of a pervasive battleground mentality in AMPOL and GENSEX. So that leaves me thinking, maybe the time has come and I should do what I'm sure a lot of admins have considered, and that's TBAN you from both of them.
I've been back to adminship a few weeks, and I'm not really looking to be the kind of heavy-sanctioning admin I once was. I know you're a good person. I know you want the best. I also know I could put together a diff list a mile long of you being disruptive in both of those topic areas, and I think you know that too. And I know that, despite all this, you're usually pretty receptive to criticism. So help me out. Tell me what I should do. I don't think you're going to be able to convince me that the answer is "nothing", but I think if we talk through the issues, maybe we can come up with some solution here that isn't a siteblock or a double TBAN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that does sound like a good idea in any given dispute. It doesn't really give us a solution to the general problem of you getting into all these disputes, usually in very avoidable ways. Which is why I'm leaning toward TBANs, because, while draconian, they're the only way short of a block to keep disputes from arising in the first place. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, I'd be willing to catch a TBAN, voluntarily, for a while. Especially lately, with the results of the 2024 election, it's been hard to control my behavior considering what might come to so many people, including you and me. Everything sets me off. And it definitely shows with my recent edits being basically just trolling. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds good. Not like I should be on Wikipedia for a while anyways while I get my behavior fixed (which will likely happen soon, thankfully, as I have a meetup scheduled in regards to that after the holidays). LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still gotta do the paperwork
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from gender-related disputes or controversies and related people, broadly construed, until 17 June 2025.
You have been sanctioned for persistent battleground conduct.
You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. 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 above is unclear to you.
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from American politics, broadly construed, until 17 June 2025.
You have been sanctioned for persistent battleground conduct.
You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. 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 above is unclear to you.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_Worker_cleaning_train_windshield_at_Dessau_Hbf.jpg)
