User talk:Bcmh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:48, 13 September 2023

Welcome!

Hello, Bcmh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hello. Just to make you aware, you have broken WP:3RR at Next Singaporean general election. Please could you revert your most recent edit and restore the previous text, or you will be reported and most likely blocked. Cheers, Number 5 7 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bcmh. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reserves of the Government of Singapore has been accepted

Reserves of the Government of Singapore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

As you've ignored multiple requests to stop, you have been reported. Number 5 7 16:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bcmh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

understood the block for edit warring on Next Singaporean general election, appreciate and will use the suggestions provided for page protection and dispute resolution instead of edit warring, keen to continue making useful contributions as shown in user contributions page and now understands the purpose of consensus through the five pillars Bcmh (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This block is for edit warring; I think that based on this request that will not recur, so I am removing the block. If anyone has other grievances with this user's behavior, WP:ANI is now the proper forum- though my suggestion would be to not run there immediately. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose an unblock here. Bcmh has repeatedly acted in bad faith in the last month, whether it be edit warring, ignoring BRD, lying about socking, or making clearly untrue claims in edit summaries and talk page discussions. I have no doubt that an unblock would be followed by more of the same. Number 5 7 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the above statement is starting to feel like bullying and going too far, it's not surprising that the user who made the complaint would strongly oppose an unblock, but to allege lying and untruthfulness as if it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt shows that the above user is treating wikipedia like a court of justice with rules of evidence and presumptions of innocence when this is clearly is not the case, as i have learnt from previous experience where my denial was instead taken as an aggravating factor. At that time, i did not appeal against the blocking and "served the time" because I knew my position in not being able to prove that something did not happen but now the above user engages in defamatory behaviour and tries to predict the future? I definitely do not accept and deny this mischaracterisation of my input in edit summaries and talk page discussions. Every utterance I made in those pages was backed up by evidence and sources, and was most definitely not "clearly untrue".

To be clear, I am writing this only to refute the above mischaracterisations and attack on my honesty regarding edit summaries and talk page discussions. This is one bright line that I never crossed with the above user, I have never impugned their honesty and character in this manner and in whatever they wrote in edit summaries and talk page discussions because even though we disagree, I understand and believe that they are only saying what they believe to be true and in good faith, even on the edit summaries and talk pages, but I never resorted to attacks on their honesty in the manner they they have done above, which I find to be unnecessary and distasteful. Bcmh (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a clearly untrue edit summary (claiming I changed the introduction of the article in this edit in April 2021). Here is an example of a clearly untrue comment on a talk page (both phrases are correct, as noted by everyone else in the discussion and numerous sources provided). Number 5 7 09:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this block is only for edit warring, not more general disruptive editing. The edits Number 57 mentions seem to flow from the edit war. As Bcmh seems to now understand how to resolve editing disputes without edit warring, I'm inclined to remove the block, but I'm interested in what Daniel Case thinks. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really seen anyone else weigh in, so I'm going to say that, if you feel this won't recur, at least not anytime soon, you may lift the block. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the wikilawyering below, I still oppose an unblock. While they may stop edit warring, it looks like they are doubling down on their dubious debating technique. Number 5 7 09:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping that the blocking administrator @Daniel Case: and the reviewing administrator @331dot: are aware that Number 57's opposition to unblocking comes from their capacity as an involved and interested party instead of an independent and objective reviewing administrator.

And also hoping that "wikilawyering" or "dubious debating" are not valid variables for any decision-making process on unblocking because the comments made below the block review box to which Number 57 refers to as "wikilawyering" and "dubious debating", were made only to defend against the unmeritorious and defamatory allegations made by Number 57 in the first place, thank you for considering this block review. Bcmh (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User known as Number 57 did change the introduction of the article from the former and correct version to their desired and incorrect version at 01:29 on 9 Jan 2021, therefore, when I'm able to, I will post a correction to my edit summary to say that Number 57 did make the change in their revision of 01:29, 9 Jan 2021 instead of their revision of 04:30, 3 Apr 2021; I am confident that this will expunge the untruthfulness that Number 57 feels so wronged by in their earlier statement. I will also refer to the correct revision during any future dispute resolution proceeding.

Regarding the other comment on the talk page that Number 57 alleges to be untruthful, I am confident that other editors/administrators will be able to differentiate between untruthful assertions of fact and subjective assertions of personal opinion, to which mine was the latter and therefore, does not fall within Number 57's definition of untruthfulness and requires no justification or clarification on my part.

To be clear, I have never alleged that any of Number 57's own subjective assertions of personal opinion that plural phrasing is correct and interchangeable with singular, were untruthful, I have only ever said that they are wrong or incorrect. There is a big difference between disputing someone else's opinion and impugning someone else's honesty. Bcmh (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to President of Singapore, 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 your sandbox for that. Thank you. Lightoil (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightoil thx for the message, what is considered a "valid reason" and what is defined as "constructive" because I don't see you or your program reverting or policing other users on the same article who have engaged in more egregious behaviour. Bcmh (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not make the rules I just revert changes if you do not like changes being made revert them yourself. By the way please read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Lightoil (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bcmh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Understood the block for edit warring on President of Singapore. The most recent revert I made on President of Singapore where I neglected to include an edit summary, was for the same reason as those with edit summaries that I made before (that the user known as Dawkin Verbier did not get consensus for their substantial edits to the lead section and was engaging in sockpuppetry with unregistered accounts). As learnt from previous events, I did request page protection for President of Singapore but was initially turned down. Hoping that this block will be reviewed favourably so that I can use the dispute resolution and relevant administrator notice boards for the events regarding Dawkin Verbier and President of Singapore, and to state my position on the lead section of the President of Singapore article in its talk page. Thank you for reviewing this block Bcmh (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see far too many blocks in the last few months to consider such an early unblock request. Consider waiting six months, per the standard offer. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would strongly recommend this request is rejected. I opposed the last unblock request, which unfortunately was granted and they returned to edit warring soon afterwards. They were subsequently blocked again, and their very first edit after this expired was to continue edit warring. Combined with the earlier sockpuppetry (which they lied about), making false accusations in the unblock request about Dawkin Verbier (who was not engaging in sockpuppetry, but was dealing with suspected sockpuppets of another user), and having made the same promises in the previous unblock request, I think it's clear that unblocking would be a very bad idea. Number 5 7 12:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't see an unblock happening either. Bcmh, you've had your second chance and you have thrown it away. Please find a different website to disrupt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bcmh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To return to my original purpose of making useful contributions in areas that I am able to, such as adding newly sourced information and editing existing content for the purpose of clarity and conveyance of meaning, which I have had a history of doing; with the recognition that previous hot-headed actions were caused by impatience for instant gratification in correcting others, I will use talk pages as the first area to raise opinions or concerns with justification and the aim of seeking consensus, and then propose a remedy first before taking other action like dispute resolution if needed; not able to promise perfection but will try with more restraint than before, thank you for reading this message. Bcmh (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me. I don't really see a path forward for you without a WP:0RR restriction and likely, as Number 57 says below, without a WP:TOPICBAN on all politics-related articles. Other admins may feel differently. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I continue to oppose an unblock – the way the request is worded (specifically the reference to "correcting others") suggests they do not intend to be collaborative (the contentious edits were not "corrections" but attempts to enforce style preferences). If it is granted, I would strongly suggest it is done on condition of a topic ban from all politics-related articles, as this is where the disruption was being caused. Number 5 7 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bcmh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

not sure if this is the correct method to clarify but the response by the user known as Number 57 in my previous unblock request makes reference to my recognition that my former actions in wanting to correct others provides sufficient reason to oppose the unblock request; however, I would like to clarify that my intention was to convey that I recognised the undesirability of my previous behaviour and that I do not intend to continue such behaviour; I would not be requesting an unblock if I wanted to repeat the same behaviour that is wrong and got me blocked in the first place; hoping that the reviewing administrator known as Yamla and/or another administrator can see that the interpretation conveyed by Number 57 was not at all what I intended to convey, just to be clear, I re-write and re-state my previous unblock request with clearer phrasing here: "To return to my original purpose of making useful contributions in areas that I am able to, such as adding newly sourced information and editing existing content for the purpose of clarity and conveyance of meaning, which I have had a history of doing; with the recognition that my previous hot-headed actions six plus months ago were caused by my impatience for instant gratification in correcting others that I recognise is wrong and will not repeat, I will use talk pages as the first area to raise opinions or concerns with justification and the aim of seeking consensus, and then propose a remedy first before taking other action like dispute resolution if needed; not able to promise perfection but will try with more restraint than before, thank you for reading this message". Also, for clarity, my intention in re-posting this unblock request is to clarify any possible misinterpretation of my previous request which was not phrased in the best of terms. Thank you Bcmh (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The user says below that they "want to return to making useful contributions to the subject areas that I have been active in prior to the block". I do not think this is a good idea, and if unblocked I would suggest that they be restricted from editing in the topic areas that caused the negative behaviour. Also, the unblock requests do not go into enough detail to explain why the edits that led to the block were wrong. More specific information will be needed for an unblock request to be successful. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's not that you recognise reverting was wrong, it's the fact that you still believe you were "correcting others". That's the root cause of your behavioural issues on here. Number 5 7 16:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the response from the user known as Number 57 above seems to omit the second half of the phrase that they quote from my unblock request, which says: "in correcting others that I recognise is wrong", again I acknowledge that my phrasing may not be the best but my intended meaning was: I recognise that correcting others without consensus or other users' input or by simply reverting was wrong, and it's not that I was correcting others that I deem to be wrong. If I were to re-phrase it, it would be "in correcting others, and I recognise that this is wrong". Bcmh (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. You were not "correcting others". There were no corrections being made. You were simply imposing a personal preference. What you were changing was not wrong. Number 5 7 17:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Not sure why other users seem intent on misunderstanding my prior entries no matter what but "I would like to clarify that my intention was to convey that I recognised the undesirability of my previous behaviour and that I do not intend to continue such behaviour; I would not be requesting an unblock if I wanted to repeat the same behaviour that is wrong and got me blocked in the first place".

(2) I have recalibrated my expectations after these six good months and want to return to making useful contributions to the subject areas that I have been active in prior to the block and I understand that these contributions are subject to the wider consensus of the community and can be reverted, and the difference between now and then is that I do not wish to repeat the same admittedly knee-jerk and emotional reactions of engaging in edit wars not just because it's wrong but also because I have something to lose, namely, the privilege of editing and contributing here.

(3) Knee-jerk and emotional reactions due to experiencing two recent and consecutive personal tragedies, and the subsequent short-term gratification but long-term harmful effect of engaging in edit wars, not saying this to plead for any pity at all, but saying this to show and distinguish the difference between now and then, and also to say that the passage of time such as these six good months does have the capability of providing a stabilising effect on one's emotions.

(4) Even with the potential of further intentional misunderstanding from other users, I am even totally fine with being criticised based on my revelation of personal tragedies and I hope that this shows and proves how the last six months have had a stabilising effect on myself. Just to be clear again in case of any intentional or unintentional misinterpretation, the only reason I am speaking about the personal tragedies is to distinguish between now and then, and to speak to the stabilising effect that the last six months have had on myself, and not for any pity; therefore I am appealing to be unblocked without any limitations and will be a different editor from last time around, thank you to any reviewing administrator for reading this. Bcmh (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and uncivility by User:Sgweirdo. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Bcmh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With the understanding that this block was due to my undesirable edit warring behaviour in the President of Singapore article with the user known as Dawkin Verbier in particular and, my pattern of past and cumulative edit warring behaviour in general, I hereby appeal for this block to be lifted because:

(1) I recognise the undesirability of my past disruptive behaviour,

(2) I understand why it's not ideal to give in to emotional reactions on my part due to two recent and consecutive personal tragedies (the only reason I am speaking about the personal tragedies is to distinguish between now and then, and to speak to the reflective effect that the last seven months away from wikipedia has had on myself and why the behaviour came to be in the first place),

(3) I recognise the desirability of a more collaborative posture for consensus-building and seeking dispute resolution if needed, instead of giving in to emotional reactions and adopting disruptive behaviour,

(4) I have learnt from my mistakes and understand why such behaviour is not conducive for wikipedia,

(5) I will not do it again, and

(6) I wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia

Thank you for reading and considering this request Bcmh (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=With the understanding that this block was due to my undesirable edit warring behaviour in the President of Singapore article with the user known as Dawkin Verbier in particular and, my pattern of past and cumulative edit warring behaviour in general, I hereby appeal for this block to be lifted because:

:(1) I recognise the undesirability of my past disruptive behaviour,

:(2) I understand why it's not ideal to give in to emotional reactions on my part due to two recent and consecutive personal tragedies (the only reason I am speaking about the personal tragedies is to distinguish between now and then, and to speak to the reflective effect that the last seven months away from wikipedia has had on myself and why the behaviour came to be in the first place),

:(3) I recognise the desirability of a more collaborative posture for [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]-building and seeking dispute resolution if needed, instead of giving in to emotional reactions and adopting disruptive behaviour,

:(4) I have learnt from my mistakes and understand why such behaviour is not conducive for wikipedia,

:(5) I will not do it again, and

:(6) I wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia

Thank you for reading and considering this request [[User:Bcmh|Bcmh]] ([[User talk:Bcmh#top|talk]]) 10:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=With the understanding that this block was due to my undesirable edit warring behaviour in the President of Singapore article with the user known as Dawkin Verbier in particular and, my pattern of past and cumulative edit warring behaviour in general, I hereby appeal for this block to be lifted because:

:(1) I recognise the undesirability of my past disruptive behaviour,

:(2) I understand why it's not ideal to give in to emotional reactions on my part due to two recent and consecutive personal tragedies (the only reason I am speaking about the personal tragedies is to distinguish between now and then, and to speak to the reflective effect that the last seven months away from wikipedia has had on myself and why the behaviour came to be in the first place),

:(3) I recognise the desirability of a more collaborative posture for [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]-building and seeking dispute resolution if needed, instead of giving in to emotional reactions and adopting disruptive behaviour,

:(4) I have learnt from my mistakes and understand why such behaviour is not conducive for wikipedia,

:(5) I will not do it again, and

:(6) I wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia

Thank you for reading and considering this request [[User:Bcmh|Bcmh]] ([[User talk:Bcmh#top|talk]]) 10:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=With the understanding that this block was due to my undesirable edit warring behaviour in the President of Singapore article with the user known as Dawkin Verbier in particular and, my pattern of past and cumulative edit warring behaviour in general, I hereby appeal for this block to be lifted because:

:(1) I recognise the undesirability of my past disruptive behaviour,

:(2) I understand why it's not ideal to give in to emotional reactions on my part due to two recent and consecutive personal tragedies (the only reason I am speaking about the personal tragedies is to distinguish between now and then, and to speak to the reflective effect that the last seven months away from wikipedia has had on myself and why the behaviour came to be in the first place),

:(3) I recognise the desirability of a more collaborative posture for [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]-building and seeking dispute resolution if needed, instead of giving in to emotional reactions and adopting disruptive behaviour,

:(4) I have learnt from my mistakes and understand why such behaviour is not conducive for wikipedia,

:(5) I will not do it again, and

:(6) I wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia

Thank you for reading and considering this request [[User:Bcmh|Bcmh]] ([[User talk:Bcmh#top|talk]]) 10:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is going to require- at a minimum- you agreeing to a topic ban from articles related to current politics, as well as an 0RR restriction. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I agree to the ban and restriction Bcmh (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 Thank you for reading and considering this request [[User:Bcmh|Bcmh]] ([[User talk:Bcmh#top|talk]]) 10:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)}}
 This is going to require- at a minimum- you agreeing to a topic ban from articles related to current politics, as well as an [[WP:0RR|0RR]] restriction. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
+{{ping|331dot}} I agree to the ban and restriction [[User:Bcmh|Bcmh]] ([[User talk:Bcmh#top|talk]]) 17:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)