Per discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, you are now subject to an editing restriction. The full text of the restriction is as follows:

Lurking shadow (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edits on any Wikipedia article with respect to copyright violations, including but not limited to blanking any article or removing any material from an article which they believe to be a copyright violation. They may report suspected copyright infringement to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems if they can show that they have investigated their suspicions to a reasonable extent. Repeated insufficient or false reports may lead to further sanctions. Notwithstanding this topic ban, Lurking shadow is encouraged to seek mentorship from an editor experienced in copyright matters to advise them and guide their actions.

This sanction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If you have any questions please ask here or at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Oath Keepers, 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. Quotations are not statements of fact and your edits left a mess. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, let's continue this on the talk page of that page.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Two question for here - what is the mess my edits left? I can't find it in my version. Why did you use that template when it is clearly not accurate - I used the edit summary.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my iPad and it looked as though you'd removed too meany <ref>s, my bad. I should have tweaked the edit summary. And it's not exactly the case that we don't use biased sources, but I don't mind attribution to the ADL. I would mind if people insisted we had to attribute every scientific source in fringe science articles. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the heat is leaving me braindead. For some reason I though you were removing only the quotes and not the entire source. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 20:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Puzzled. Please expand. --Pete (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring, what's the purpose of this? If you write "no photographs" then this looks like an assumption that they might use inappropiate photographs(e.g. one of themself to prove that they look like a male person).Lurking shadow (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, derr. That's the whole point. We as Wikipedia editors aren't required to be male or female, have a particular skin colour, religious view or anything. Just a functioning brain, be literate, and have some method of input. If we were to accept HiLo's view that one has to be "a real man", whatever that is, then how would one attempt to prove one's masculinity? Or anything else?

Surely you do not subscribe to this view? By accusing me of bad behaviour, and through your remarks above, it seems you also regard physical features as having some legitimacy here on Wikipedia. To my mind, that is abhorrent. --Pete (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. It's rather that you told them not to do something in advance that one normally assumes not to happen in this situation. Although they did talk about "man enough"(which is bad, and I have said as much at ANI) there was no sign of any of the two partipiciants going that far from the norm. Additionally, if they would somehow in a state of mind to do that, they would probably not be discouraged by your warning, and WP:BEANS applies.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's the point. WP:BEANS applies absolutely. The humour in the admonition is because it's something that one would not normally consider - though Don Trump would likely go to Photoshop to present evidence of the size of his manhood and I see DT and HL as sharing some personality traits, though very little else. Humour is something I take seriously, and in the next few days I'll be publishing a joke book, filled with examples of my slightly off-beat sense of it. Just have to get the format spot on, and getting Catalina, Scrivener, Word, Vellum, and KDP to play nicely together is the devil's own job.

Humour aside, my intention was to lead the mind of the reader to the point where contemplating the admonition to "be a real man" reached a logical conclusion. Both are equally absurd and equally out of place. --Pete (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your point. However, please be careful, the intention behind such posts like that be easily misunderstood on text, and humour is easier to miss, too.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please enable email? I would like to talk to you. Money emoji💵^Talk💸 22:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to enable email, sorry.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I was just going to ask you whether you wanted to appeal your topic ban or not. I know a good deal about copyright and would happily show the ropes. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned "No? WP:BEFORE" and contested PROD. What did you find? Your edit summary appeared as if you have found 2 sources from The New York Times and 3 from The Guardian. Or you were just on deprodding spree? Hitro talk 07:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One quick search shows that it exists and is a place. That's all what WP:GEOLAND requires.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, on basis of this quick search you decided to waste the time of the volunteers at the Wikipedia community and accuse me of not doing WP:BEFORE. With under 300 mainspace edits, it is highly likely that this is the first time you read WP:GEOLAND so it is nugatory to ask you whether you read the first paragraph of WP:NGEO of which WP:GEOLAND is a subset. Can you add one single source from WP:RS to the article that you dePRODed?

There are multiple ways of contributing constructively at Wikipedia, and this is not one of them. I sincerely request you to restrict your urge of committing frivolous dePRODings, these acts are not helpful. Regards. Hitro talk 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think none of these sources are reliable or that the presumption from WP:GEOLAND is wrong, go ahead and raise this matter at WP:AFD. It is just not an article you should have prodded if that's your concern. You should have opened a deletion discussion instead.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I pointed out earlier. The purpose of such edits of yours are just to make uncontroversial deletion controversial and waste time of the volunteers. I have came across many of such users over the time. On basis of weather reports and unreliable maps that you "quickly searched" you are asking me to take this article to AfD. What can this be interpreted to? Why don't you read WP:BURDEN and add reliable sources to the article? This would be more helpful than defending your inane action. Hitro talk 19:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to get annoying.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that understood, why is the community about to apply general sanctions if there are DS in place? If the area is already under DS from the Arbs, shouldn't anything like changing protection levels be on AE? ANI seems like the wrong venue if this falls under that ArbCom case. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ECP and 1RR have not been enacted by ArbCom for Eastern Europe. The community can pile on these sanctions accordingly. You certainly can go to WP:ARCA and request ArbCom to take over these sanctions(not a bad idea). ECP is the last resort for ArbCom so it would probably be more difficult to enact it at WP:AE without prior community consensus.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, that's not how DS works. DS allows an uninvolved admin to place revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. They don't have to go back to the arbs for specific enforcement for DS, So a 1RR or EC could be placed (and in fact, 1RR has been placed by admins as a result of DS). FrederalBacon (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every page restriction made by an adminstrator must be accompanied by an editnotice for every single page affected, and the restriction only expands, de facto, to these pages. The protection policy also warns adminstrators against using ECP on pages pre-emptively. ECP for a topic area authorized the way it is now being authorized is a topic ban for all users who are not extended-confirmed. DS do not allow that to be done by adminstrators(de facto, by requiring them to notify every single affected editor).Lurking shadow (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]