Aware of all discretionary sanctions as of 11:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

See this version of WP:DSTOPICS This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion complementary and alternative medicine the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style the Balkans or Eastern Europe articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes COVID-19, broadly construed Falun Gong governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1978 Iranian politics the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Troubles He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hello, RAN1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Closedmouth (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

It's sweet that you monitor so many things, but please be a little more alert to nuance. Calling someone a heroic lanky marmot is hardly a personal attack, more a response to someone calling the same person a miserable little weasel. Just so you know, when I call you an oaf it's not meant to be abusive (just so you know!). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I caught the lanky marmot part as sarcasm and considering those other two guys were making PAs I erred on the side of RPA. I'll be a bit more reserved about removing comments in the future. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for replying. Ericoides (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shooting of John Crawford III has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable event. Brief bursts of coverage when it happened and when the guy wasn't indicted, but Wikipedia is not a news site.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. I'll pass, maybe someone else will contest it. --RAN1 (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually notice that you'd already suspected in your edit summary that it might not be notable, glad you're taking the proposed deletion with good will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From ANI: I did not collapse this because I was ignoring it, I collapsed it because Jbarta was right.

Also keep in mind that coming off as a self-styled one-man review board is also not helpful. Editors have egos, and the best way to piss them off en-masse is to explode onto the scene with blustery talk about "your review". You are not above other editors and I would suggest getting down into the trenches and editing with everyone else rather than proclaiming your wisdom from on high.

This... this was why I collapsed it. I could not do as I am used to and I cannot review it and expect something this complex to be replaced with my private draft either. He's right, I am not above you - we may mis-communicate, but you are working to correct the article and make it better. I halted my review of all the sources, and picked the low hanging fruit, but Vox is fine (I erred by calling it unreliable). Jbarta gave me some perspective. I haven't axed anything major, your opinion on Knafo may differ, but I added 3 sources (using 2 now) and started to put perspective on the Grand Jury matter. I mean, how was it missed that Ferguson is 2/3rds black and the St. Louis county is 70% white. Or that the sitting grand jury was not sequestered. We are still missing how they would have to vote to indict. Context, perspective and plain disinterested details - that is what policy states and its what I strive for. Here's a bit of a tip, Cwobeel thinks I am "defending" McCulloch because I rebuke the arguments - but doesn't realize that my criticism cuts deeper and to an indisputable core issue without attacking the person. Oh gosh, McCulloch may have a few new angles of criticism with the sourcing I referenced - it just won't be lengthy POV-pushing quotes. Disinterested facts do the job without getting nasty. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On a related note, check out Jamilah Nasheed. This is par for the course on some BLPs. The "2011 Lil' Wayne concert" is a section I'll let you handle if you want, but that is some Jerry Springer-type drama going on a biography. It may have happened, there is no real place for things like that or in such a way. It may be extreme, but that is why it tripped the BLP warning filter. I see the Michael Brown page exactly like you probably see that section - its embarrassing to have that on Wikipedia. Claiming it is reliably sourced doesn't change what it is and does - what if [Jamilah Nasheed read that and that this given more attention than anything else in office? It is shameful and it makes Wikipedia look bad - especially since it is all over mirror sites and comes up as the first result on Google when you search for her name. My choice - axe first, question later. But I'll let you get a chance at it so we can hypothetically play WP:BRD from the other side of the table. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of John Crawford III is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of John Crawford III until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above named policy does not say "cops are weasels so we don't report their claims". Is that what you thought it said? If not, I am having trouble understanding your removal of the words "allegedly blocking traffic" which were based on Wilson's sworn grand jury testimony in which he said Brown and Dorian were blocking traffic, forcing both lanes of traffic into a single lane, meaning the cars had to pass around them one at a time, when Wilson stopped them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has BLP implications against Brown and Johnson and as far as I could tell, was not sourced. --RAN1 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Tamir Rice and Shooting of Akai Gurley also haven't concluded... I didn't want blow open your assertion after checking two cases I wasn't aware of... because, well... you made a point, but I shouldn't come down hard on you for every fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the fact they haven't concluded effectively means the same thing. --RAN1 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"All of those shootings' grand jury results happened after the grand jury investigation on Wilson concluded no true bill..." this states they concluded. I know your intention, but your words stated they all had returned results. Harmless here, but the wordings do represent issues in articles. Funny, how it slips in. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ChamithN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Shooting of Michael Brown without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Chamith (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-issue - the removal was the result of a reinsertion of material under a BLP discussion. This notification is an error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: I agree. But I issued this notification because he failed to mention about BLP discussion in his last reversion. He just used sigh, here we go again as his edit summary. As it wasn't a good explanation I had to issue this notification. But I'm going to strike out this as he later explained it on my talk page. Regards.--Chamith (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Cwobeel_for_BLP_violations - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced content from the articles. Continuing to do so in violation of consensus and continuing to grossly mislabel and misrepresent edits will result in sanctions per the Discretionary Sanctions you are already aware of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. --RAN1 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should revert your edit and stop making accusations against user contributions as being under WP:FRINGE and falsely claiming a law professor or U.S District Court judge's statement as being within that realm. This "opinion" as you call it, is in a textbook and in case law - please stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RAN1 reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: ). Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...for that last source, who is the decision maker in a regular grand jury?" - Read the source again because it is spelled out and very obvious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the source implies the prosecutor has legal responsibility for the decision. That isn't the case. --RAN1 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read the source very well then. Please, read it again because the same source makes the explanation three times, including spelling it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, but I see no reason to comment further on it here. --RAN1 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enlighten me, who decision maker is on the charge in a regular grand jury? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my explanation of the facepalm. Are you familiar with Kantian ethics? Aside from being a great example of WP:NPOV, it is also very much true to this situation for a number of reasons. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. You have no idea how sorry I am... but I don't think I can provide any better explanation then that under the circumstances. I hope you understand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: I am familiar with Kantian ethics, but I believe where you and I differ is that while you believe it is a great example of NPOV, I believe it is a good reason to follow NPOV. Take that as you will. --RAN1 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be familiar with it if you gave me that answer. The mere mention under this circumstances usually provokes a very specific response. I am sorry, but your response has told me everything that I need to know now. If you were aware you would know Kant's maxim and the basis of Kant's morality arguments - and where that leads. Kant is layered and so was this response, the impenetrability of the logic behind it means what I feared. It is because I hold Kant's flawed logic in high regard that I hoped to show a transitive relation without actually spelling it out and leading into a perceived negativity spiral. To be concise and frank - we will not be able to work together. I'm so sorry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering it's Wikipedia, that's a big load of crap. But nice try anyways. See ya around. --RAN1 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you misunderstand and in essence revealed that you do not know what you think you know. According to Kant, the source of morality is intentionalism and lying is immoral regardless of whether the intent was good because of the Universality Test - but Kant's logic breaks down in these circumstances. However, your response clearly demonstrates - by itself - that you do not understand my words. And instead of clarifying the unknown you instead assert your impression in stark contrast to what was actually said. Furthermore, you knew you were in the wrong and continued to edit war anyways and you continued to advance knowingly false claims at BLPN. I facepalmed in the talk page because I saw you failed to understand what was even being discussed and you completely took the opposite meaning from even small documents. You do not understand. You do not understand and I cannot help you understand - a week of that prompted the facepalm. We cannot work together when you cannot understand the material or the words of others - it is a communication issue that cannot be resolved by anything I or any other editor can do. You are the reason we cannot work together - because you do not understand and do not listen. If you were to just listen and clarify what you do not understand then everything would be just peachy and you would not be calling Cassell's source WP:OR, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS, or WP:FRINGE. Absolutely none of these policies are in any way relevant, at all, to the arguments you continue to advance and defend even after this point is made perfectly clear by multiple parties. That is why. Before you get mad, I said I do apologize because of what it meant and what it means. But do you understand what this means now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Fair enough. I ask that if an AE case is filed against me that you do not comment as an uninvolved admin because of this notification and your collapsing of the offending section. --RAN1 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I wrote the above only having seen the DS notif, sorry if it seems out of context. --RAN1 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement has been very intentionally in purely an administrative capacity so as far as imposing DS sanctions I am an uninvolved admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I wrote that I was only aware of my being alerted and wasn't aware you were considering all parties. Feel free to disregard my statement, I don't intend to ask for recusal based on this anymore. --RAN1 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ran, good to meet you. Concerning your good-faith suggestion to close the thread referenced, I'm wondering if I might presume upon you for a small favour, if you find any value in my reason. Specifically I'm wondering if I can get you to retract your cue for closure, if only for another day. I know the chances are beyond slim, but I'm still hoping that there might be an opportunity here to help Medeis and TRM come to a gentleman's agreement that will help them stay out of each-other's way. I know the thread started concerning the interaction between Bugs and TRM, but it quickly became more about the dynamic between the other pairing, the bulk of the comments concern them, and (most crucially) Medeis is engaged there. Neither of them has responded to specific proposal and I rather sense reluctance on Medeis part (and there's really no guessing how TRM might respond to it), but long-shot or no, I think it's worth the try. If this has to come back to ANI again, surely one or more of the three ends up with a TBAN or a block and I think that (for the moment) the two who have most doggedly gone at it are aware of this fact and as receptive to a compromise solution as they are ever going to be. Which still may not prove to be enough, but there's potentially much to be gained and nothing to be lost in making the attempt. Snow talk 05:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Hey, I was just about to post a comment on ANI regarding that. I took a second look at it, and it seems Medeis started a second thread under that section on 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC). Considering that you have Medeis engaged there, I'm thinking refactoring all posts including and after that into its own section (or own subsection under the TRM IBAN section) would be best, since (as far as I can tell in a quick skim) that thread doesn't depend on the discussion of TRM/Bugs's IBAN. What do you think? --RAN1 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that does indeed seem to be the most elegant solution. Thank you kindly for your assistance in this; as I said, I'm dubious about the outcome of this line of discussion, but if it has even a chance of disentangling this mess, I feel compelled to pursue it at least a little bit longer. Cheers! Snow talk 06:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and feel free to remove my most recent post in the thread (concerning the cue itself) if you refactor the section yourself, seeing as it will no longer be germane. Snow talk 06:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: What I'm planning on doing is refactoring the Medeis/TRM discussion into its own subsection and leaving the rest unaltered for reference. How's that sound? --RAN1 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right to me; I believe you're suggesting Medeis' post at 04:11, 4 January as the severing-point? With your cue and Bugs' endorsement also tagged on to the end? Will you place the Medeis/TRM discussion as a subsection of the above thread, specifically? That would work pretty well, I think, though it will create one monumental thread when they are fused -- but with the subsection linking on the TOC, it's really no more of a navigation issue/eye sore than the two discussions are individually at present, and it will keep like-discussions together. That would allow you to leave Bugs' request (and the handful of posts that relate to it) as its own thread, with cue intact. Indeed, given Bugs has given his blessing to the closure of the request, you could probably archive that section and the comments without issue, though I would do that in a separate edit in the (highly unlikely) event that someone wants to reverse the closure. Snow talk 06:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought. I'm going to go ahead and do the refactoring now. --RAN1 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks just right to me -- thanks again! Snow talk 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment (first sentence) is very incivil. I'm not going to log this warning or take any further action given it's around 24 hours old and you weren't officially aware of the discretionary sanctions, but you need to be more careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though per my reporting of FCAYS at AE, I was officially aware at the time of that edit. I'll be more careful about how I phrase my disagreements. --RAN1 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about McCulloch's role in the matter since the other pieces were all jumbled and I knew something was being lost by Sorkin's 2014 piece. It makes sense now. You might not agree with me, but I don't exactly hold McCulloch in high or low regards. Sorkin's 2014 piece makes numerous issues and Sorkin has a clear slant to the writings. McCulloch doesn't seem to lie - but he has made several comments easily seen as misleading, whether or not they needed the assistance is irrelevant. A high-quality BLP needs such nuance and you've helped provide that nuance. Now, Kinkogate can return with appropriate context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: Glad that works out. Sorkin seems to be quite the expert, considering he did a decent chunk of the reporting in 97, but referencing the original news publications rather than his personal take is easier to handle for WP's purposes. I'd recommend you add the relevant articles to your current Highbeam request so you can get your hands on them ASAP. --RAN1 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got sent a few articles, but I do intend to stay away from that article for the time being. I still see the 2014 source as being an issue and the previous articles far more nuanced. You may not realize this, but I usually end up sifting through a fair amount of hoax material and other junk without raising any "fuss" because its just easier to do so. Few editors will get hinged up about word choice or the implications of certain sentences, but I do. When I am researching and finding material in the archives, a lot of claims and reports are often inaccurate or contradictory. Sometimes material is plain wrong and its by my doing that the record is set straight. I submit corrections and work in the background on most things. You won't believe the sort of vandalism and garbage that clutters some articles. I might fix Froggy's page up, but ugh... even not under BLP I shudder at the implications of doing so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: Fair enough, I know how wording and implication issues can be extremely aggravating even if they seem silly sometimes. I hope those articles will let you clear up those vagueness issues, the intros provided far better context than some of the modern articles we've been citing. --RAN1 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, your source was actually among the best - I just don't know McCulloch too well to really proceed and I am not exactly supportive of his actions. Despite this, I'm likely to get Braff's work in the few days and I'll be thoroughly busy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RAN1 -- I appreciated your comments at the AE I filed, although I'm sorry I filed it: I was upset. Just wanted to follow up on our brief exchange about COI. I wrote: "Note: In the "real world", practicing acupuncturists study and write MEDRS's about its effectiveness and are not generally considered conflicted," to which you replied [1] "Regarding COI, Wikipedia does not apply that standard to COIs since Wikipedia's aims are markedly different than most MEDRS's." But we do apply that standard, insofar as WP:COI has said for years (in one way or another) that simply having a profession does not, in itself, create a COI. And Wikipedia does share, with e.g. Cochrane Reviews, the aim of writing a good tertiary source. Obviously WP differs from Cochrane, e.g., anyone can edit, and it's not necessarily reliable.

My thinking is: Practicing acupuncturists write Cochrane reviews, which we consider unsurpassed as MEDRS's. Do we presume to be somehow more "exclusive" than Cochrane? Of all the editors we could be discouraging, why does it have to be topic-area experts, especially when arguably our single worst problem is a shrinking pool of editors? (MastCell is sadly correct in his WP:CGTW #4, including the footnote.) As long as expert editors respect WP:5P and WP:ADVOCACY, I think they should be treated like everyone else, plus maybe an extra "thank-you".

AFAIK, Wikipedia has never told an entire profession that they automatically have a COI, even though many professionals would benefit from somehow having their profession look better. Also, in my experience the COI argument has been raised cynically, in an attempt to win content disputes: I've seen this more and more lately, where editors comment on the contributor instead of content. Very much the young male demographic, aggressive, more "skeptic" than scientist. Just my thoughts, FWIW. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this AE request, which you filed against Factchecker atyourservice. The cosensus of uninvolved administrators was that the diffs cited represented legitimate, albeit heated, discussion of a content matter and did not violate BLP or any other conduct policy. Please ensure that any future enforcement requests you make are related to a genuine conduct issue, rather than to force an end to a content dispute. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RAN1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RAN1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to get into fights where I'm not 100% sure I'm right with respect to the article in question, so I wanted to note for the record that if you think I'm wrong about [2] I welcome your reverting it and would not for a second think you (or anyone) reverting it would in any way be contribution to edit warring. I appreciate the edit you made, just thought that the writer/publisher and type of article needed a bit of clarity. Hipocrite (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite: Looks good to me, The early life section was getting turned into a coatrack, so I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the wording: I got columnist from the title of the Hollywood Reporter piece. RAN1 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RAN1. Thanks for your recent edit reinserting the One Hyde Park mention in Vladislav Doronin's article, it was both thoughtful and helpful. Given your experience with BLPs, I'd appreciate your assistance on my most recent edit request as well. Thanks again. CharlotteAman (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have some issues with the closure at: RFC on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability.

The first, and most important thing is that WP:NACD says, Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. so I think the controversial nature of the discussion, and the little dispute at the close request require an admin closure.

Also, NACD says, Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest... , but it appears to me that you have simultaneously offered your own personal opinion to the discussion along with the close by saying, "Ideally, the policy would discuss notability and navigation." If it is then your opinion that the policy "ideally would discuss notability and navigation", then it seems clear you have a vested interest in the outcome since many supporters were saying the policy was not the place for discussions about notability. If it is not your opinion, then it seems like the wrong read of consensus. Either way, I think an admin closure is required. Huggums537 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]