User talk:BobNesh

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, BobNesh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

M-84
Please do not re-add an image to M-84 after it was explained that it has an iffy provenance which has been questioned at commons, wikipedia doesnt not accept copyrighted images and we should not be using them if its licence is not clear, if you have further questions then you need to use the related article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo
I've already informed administrators about it.You deleted it in the article of the average european wages.Ambidibody (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this notification isn't particularly clear from the above comment, I am here to inform you that; Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo 2
You acted deleting Kosovo way also in the article related to the minimum wages in Europe.Kosovo is a state recognized by the majority of UN states and above all it exists.Administrator has been informed.Ambidibody (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. This is at least the second time that you've done this without regard to WP:BRD. I have restored the article to the stable version, and please take your content dispute to the talk page. Do not delete Kosovo until a consensus for that has been reached on said talk page. Dschslava Δx  parlez moi  20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Your recent editing history at List of sovereign states in Europe by minimum wage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sigma-class corvette, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Redalert2fan (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Gersh Kuntzman, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 19:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Gersh Kuntzman, you may be blocked from editing. Majora (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Aleppo massacre. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

April 2017
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Geogene (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Murder of Seth Rich, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gersh Kuntzman, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

March 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to White Helmets (Syrian Civil War), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Fake news, you may be blocked from editing. ''Your edit summary said " Biased and unsourced material removed." which is not true the material was sourced. Properly should discuss that on the talk page.'' CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ROKS Daegu.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ROKS Daegu.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs. Claiming that the operation was a "failure" without sources is not acceptable. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Separatist forces of the war in Donbass. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ivan Gren-class landing ship. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  20:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dock landing ship, you may be blocked from editing. - the WOLF  child  20:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. '' Note: you leave very few, if any, edit summaries to explain your changes. This along with the constant lack sourcing you attach to your edits only serves to make more work for your fellow editors as they have to review and clean up your disruptive editing. Please follow Wikipedia's policies & guidelines, especially with sourcing, and also please add edit summaries to all your changes. Thank you - the WOLF  child '' 20:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 00:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Murder of Seth Rich, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. w umbolo  ^^^  12:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian referendum
I know what it meant. It’s a bad way of saying it. Red Jay (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Squadron2020 rendering.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries. Again.
Is there some reason why you refuse to leave edit summaries when you make changes? - wolf  21:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Remove Kebab; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Resnjari (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Note
w umbolo  ^^^  18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

w umbolo  ^^^  18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. w umbolo  ^^^  23:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Radio Liberty
U said «so-called Radio Liberty is not considered reliable source», can you proof it? Most propaganda lie in Remove Kebab page is based on this «source», would be great to remove it all. The Dvornjaga (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversed edit on Sukhoi Superjet 100
The source you used for the Sukhoi Superjet 100 is not reliable as it is against WP:RS as it is fan-made. Do not change it as it is against consensus. If you want, use the talk page to convince us, but otherwise, keep doing this and you will be reported for edit warring. Thank you. - Josephua (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Josephua (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Please familiarize yourself with our policy on reliable sources. Fan-authored sources rarely meet the threshold, so continuing to edit war over additions attributed to these may be met with sanctions. Thanks. El_C 23:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive
That move was quite disruptive, and I see you have a long history of similar. Please engage talk pages before making such large unilateral decisions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

March 2020 - Not adhering to neutral point of view
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Please do not use the word claim per WP:CLAIM, please use reliable sources to cite material you add to Wikipedia. Diff: 176.88.138.193 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Your recent editing history at Dassault Rafale shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Dassault Rafale. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests
Hello. Due to consensus at WP:RSP Sputnik is an unreliable source, while Fox and CNN are considered reliable. Anon0098 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hi BobNesh! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Gam-COVID-Vac
I note that in this edit, you removed content without an edit summary. Our convention here is that reversion without an edit summary is only appropriate for obvious vandalism, and there can be no case made for that in the case of the original addition of content that you removed. That behaviour is below par for what is required for articles under general sanctions and any further breach of those standards is likely to be met with sanctions. I hope you will take this warning seriously. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

April 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bakhmut Russian Victory
Bro, change the title and topic to just vote for "Russian Victory". Don't give them excuses to oppose it merely on the basis of the word "decisive".

Cheers Nebakin (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ BobNesh (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —Michael Z. 17:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Voting to change the status of the battle for Bakhmut to Russian victory
You can vote here:

Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut

Thank you! BobNesh (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
 You have been blocked for one month from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for tendentious, disruptive editing, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of indefinitely. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * First year of this is an Arbitration Enforcement action, remainder is an admin sanction under normal procedures. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request
BobNesh (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this is an AE/CTOPS action, the block will need to appealed to ArbCom. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BobNesh
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''

''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – BobNesh (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Indefinite block, imposed and logged at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by BobNesh
I should be unblocked because in the meantime I haven't made any edits on main Wikipedia pages (for over a month!); because I think (or at least, I thought) that we should avoid double standards; because I think that Wikipedia should be objective and not to push someone's bias and agenda. Unfortuanly, this isn't the case with pages related to Ukrainian war. There are users that constantly treat other users that make good faith edits (citing Western mainstream media sources by the way) and revert their constructive edits. I personally never treated anyone. The treats and insults were directed towards me and towards other editors that make constructive edits in order to make Wikipedia articles as objective as possible. Numerous times they were called "dogs" on the talk page, but there are no sanctions for that. These insults remain to this day on "Battle for Bakhmut" talk page. Yes, I said that as written, Wikipedia article "Battle for Bakhmut" distorts the reality and negates the facts. But this was noticed by dozens of other users as well, not just me! They cite a number of Western sources that admit that the battle of Bakhmut ended, yet by bias-pushing, stealth canvassing users these claims are ridiculed and ignored. '''As a sign of good will, I will completely give up and won't edit even talk pages related to Ukrainian war, I promise. Time will take care of that.''' Thank you. BobNesh (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BobNesh
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Result of the appeal by BobNesh

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

BobNesh (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

AE Appeal copied over
Per the above I have copied your request over to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)