User talk:Mrbrklyn

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

In addition, as a result of a recent ruling, all anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flatbush, Brooklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mir Yeshiva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Could you please clarify what you meant by "My activity has not been dormant. I have 6 kids that use this thing all the time, aside myself"? Specifically what you mean by the phrase "use this thing". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the wikipedea resources and website... not to mention testing the wikipedia software... but that is a whole other area of conversation ;)

About arbiitration pages

Threaded discussion is not allowed there. Your comments have been moved to a separate section, which you'll find here. BMK (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"radical leftists, and BSD activists"

Just curious. "BSD" = "Bi-sexual Democrats"? BTW, I love the irony when you write "I have no political ax to grind, unlike our group of radical leftists, and BSD activists on here." BMK (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant the boycott and sanction movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 23:44, 17 March 2016‎

Oh? How do you get from "boycott and sanction movement" to "BSD? {the "D" isn't even near the "M" on the keyboard), and how the heck is that related to "radical leftists"? Or were you just sort of randomly lashing our at bad things? BMK (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a slip from BSD which was Berkley Software Design. The Boycott and Saction movement is not left wing? Who know? If you want to argue that, you'll need to argue it with someone else. I'm not interested in the argument. I base that opinion on the observed posts of the admins involved both on their use pages and in comments they have made. Mrbrklyn (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no doubt whatsoever that you hold that opinion. BMK (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK.... I on the other hand will defer from making any snarling opeds, or condem you for any opinions you may or may not hold. I'm not sure if I'm being attacked here or not, which is pretty cute, but I still refuse to argue any of these issues in this venue.

Have a good Shabbos! Reuvain Mrbrklyn (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are you in favor of the boycott and sanction movement against the Jews in Israel? I just want to know if your in that category of political activists. Mrbrklyn (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be super clear, I have never even heard of it. BMK (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

) Smiles

Mrbrklyn (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is BSD, Boycott, Sanction, Disinvest. Mrbrklyn (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your "missing" edits

It's very unlikely that Wikipedia "lost" some of your edits. As I pointed out at ARCA, the edits you thought were "missing" there had actually been moved to another section, so it might be worthwhile considering other possibilities.

For instance, you refer to having a "brood" who also use your computer to work on Wikipedia. (Actually, you said something about "the wikipedea resources and website... not to mention testing the wikipedia software", which I hope does not mean that they are doing something that's not allowed by Wikipedia policies, like socking or breaching experiments.) Is it possible that one of your "brood" left the computer logged onto their account (I know you don't let them use your account, because that is not allowed), so that when you made your edits they were credited to that account and not to yours? Somewhere I remember reading that you claim to have created articles and merged them and done other things which are not credited to your account. If you can recall the name of one of those articles, you could look through its history and find an edit which you believe you made and see who it is credited to.

That would at least give you some idea of why the number of edits credited to you is lower than you think it should be, but, unfortunately, it won't help you much in being allowed to edit Hebron because, as ArbCom is in the process of confirming, you simply don't have the requisite number of edits under this account, and it would be extremely difficult to prove that edits made under a different account name are actually yours. If my theory is correct, that may primarily be on you for not practicing good computer security with your "brood". BMK (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt. I have over 500 edits, over a decade ago. Most of it was writing Copyright and Free Software articles and most than a little compsci and math. It is all gone. Then, I lost the password for my Mrbrklyn account and made a Mrbrklyn2 on advice of an admin. I made another 300+ edits with that account. And then my divorce started and went domant for a while. I HAVE NO DOUBT that the count is wrong. BTW, I was also involved in the shakedown of the spftware platform for quite a while.

Anyway, it gets a point where you have acess the value of this. It wasn't always like this.

I enjoyed our talk and you should have a Good Shabbos, or weekend, or St Patricks Day.

Reuvain Mrbrklyn (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As a result of your continued defiance of arbitration sanctions, I have reported you on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the outcome of the AE request. You are not permitted to edit Irasel/Palestine related articles until you have 500 edits. If you ignore this, the outcome will be a block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. 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.

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."

This edit clearly falls under ARBPIA. Please don't test the edges as you will inevitably get blocked again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

concerning your email. Editing the blp of the founder of an ngo that is concerned with distortions in human rights reporting in the arab israeli conflict is clearly bound by abpia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No nothing I posted did that, and the fact that you attack a standard academic biography speaks volumes of the basic problem that exists here. Whether his work has distortions or not is an issue of academic peer review, not for an Wikipedia editor to decide, other than quoting the review articles, such as they exist. I didn't edit or comment on ANYTHING like that and you childishly went WAY over your bounds to be vengeful and spiteful

and this is exactly why we do not want inexperienced editors involved in this sensitive editing environment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a BS excuse. I'm not inexperienced, and your not motivated by any amount of sensible considerations other than upholding one POV over others. This is why Wikipedia is losing its volunteer editors who are sick of being trolled. Not everyone is 20 years old and stupid. What I said was correct. What you did was wrong.

DOGBERRY

God's my life, where's the sexton? let him write down the prince's officer coxcomb. Come, bind them. Thou naughty varlet!

CONRADE

Away! you are an ass, you are an ass.

DOGBERRY

Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer, and, which is more, a householder, and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in

Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a

rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass! Mrbrklyn (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

500/30

So, the hated 500/30 rule claims its first good faith victim.

Hi there. I'm awfully sorry about the way you've been forced out of editing on the Hebron article and others on this technicality. The editing restrictions were imposed on accounts with a low number of edits (under 500) after vociferous lobbying of the Arbitration Committee by some of the very problem editors you may have encountered, ostensibly to do away with sockpuppets of banned editors. In practice it also conveniently means that new and casual editors can't shove ther oars in and take biased articles "off-message", and it's mostly new editors that naively attempt this, as agnostic veteran editors here simply won't touch the subject.

If it's any consolation, you are right about the horrendous bias problems in that article - particularly the decidedly negative tone of the coverage of the Jewish community in Hebron. The entire topic riddled with dubious claims cited to ideologically-driven NGOs, biased news agencies and journalists, and various academics with strong political views on the matter. That article, and for that matter, the entire topic area, is totally controlled by "activist" editors and "advocacy ducks". As you can see, much has been written about these sorts of editors, but little has been done about them.

I can only suggest you edit elsewhere until you have enough edits that they can't call your editing into question. There's plenty to do on Jewish issues - and Israel articles outside of the conflict are also unrestricted.

Most importantly, don't edit any more in conflict related areas, or you'll be blocked again. You should be able to get yourself unblocked early if you agree not to edit there anymore. To do so, put the following under the block notice above: {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Sorry about the brutal introduction to Palestine-Israel editing on Wikipedia. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A full wmaker desktop run on top of manjaro openrc.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A full wmaker desktop run on top of manjaro openrc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chaim Nahor has been accepted

Chaim Nahor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howard Chaykin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Lampoon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. Please note that per Wikipedia protocol the article remains at its preexisting status quo before the disputed edits snd is not to be edited. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:10, 10 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have only ONE account and I even went to the trouble of changing an IP non-logged in comment to my account. This is unjustified. Mrbrklyn (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined per the continued socking as noted below. —DoRD (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2018 (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.

:What do you mean by changing an IP non-logged in comment to my account? —DoRD (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I wrote something without being logged in and then cut it all out, logged and and re-entered it. I was actually having trouble logging in:

`There have been 5 failed attempts to log in to your account since the last time you logged in. If it wasn't you, please make sure your account has a strong password.`

Despite Mrbrklyn's claim that at the sock investigation that, "My IP address is 96.57.23.83 and 96.57.23.82. ... I have no knowledge of any other IP addresses," we can all see that, as the closing admin said of all the IPs, "those IPs are obviously them," referring to 173.52.38.97 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.84.1.2 166.84.1.2]. Highly identical edits, edits to virtually no other articles, same intemperate tone of voice. On a talk-page debate especially, such sock-puppetry is extremely problematic. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. My style is fairly dyslexic. You have just taken this personally and are looking for excuses to block someone who you disagree with. According to you, I am also RS Martin, and have used that as an alias since 2007. That is how over the top you have gotten. You also continue to just make things up when they don't satify you. 173.52.38.97 has TWO pages they edited. Now is a personal bio that I have zero affiliation with, and the other is American Flagg. That does not constitute "Highly identical edits, edits to virtually no other articles, same intemperate tone of voice" The other supposed address has DOZENS of edits and pages, which I have zero affiliation with. You used your superior knowledge of wilipedias archain mechanism to styme debate and continue with a article that is poorly written, poorly sourced, and inaccurate.

http://www.jessink.com/bullies.htm

You can now accuse me of being this alias as well.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs)

That you refuse to follow the clearly stated policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that 99% of the rest of us follow suggests the problem is not with the rest of Wikipedia and Wikipedians.

I would not still be on Wikipedia after 12 years and 140,000 edits if I habitually went around "taking [things] personally" and making up "excuses" to block someone I disagree with. The rest of the community would never have allowed that. Indeed, I started an RfC at the article talk page, which is exactly what we should do with disagreements: begin a discussion and try to reach a consensus. I'd ask that you respect the process and not continue edit-warring when your block expires, since admins will take note of that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do take things personally and you troll users and you are bully. 12 years is not a long time, and 140,00 edits is not an excuse for your abusiveness. Early in this dispute I asked you to help improve and all you did was be to be disruptive, to engage in an edit war, and to be rude. Nothing has changed. This has nothing to do with the guidlines. The first guildine is to be civil. You have not been civil. And I broke no "rules". I've just run into a buzzsaw of a wikipedea obsessive compulsive user show has staked his entire ego to cradling his comics section because I had the nerve to try to outline the importance of a specific comic title and somehow offended you. Your FIRST communication talked about me in the third person. That is UNCIVIL and RUDE.

And the other admins should take note how you crashed the Howard Chaykin article as well, for no cause or justification having to do with content.

Orphaned non-free image File:Chakin's American Flagg sample.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chakin's American Flagg sample.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chaykins Manipulation of Time and Space.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chaykins Manipulation of Time and Space.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Socking (1 Month block)

I have extended your block to a month for editing as Gaming boy II (talk · contribs). Editing with any additional accounts will extend your block indefinitely. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is not me. That does happen to be someone from Kingsgames in Brooklyn. Your on a which hunt You might as well go all the way and block me because, low and behold, we talk. My six kids discussed this at the table. NYLXS members have been on this for a long time now and refuse to edit anything because of the vidictiveness of Wikipedea admins. And now you blocked a 16 year old kid who was listening in on a conversation over beer. Being blocked is a badge of honor, and not a demerit. Wikipedea itself has a strong anti-semetic leaning. It is a cespool of petty egos. In academia, it is disdained, not just because of its board inaccuaracies, but you treat experts like shit. Someone who does 120,000 edits over 12 years needs medicaion, not be placed in charge of editing public knowledge databases.

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).

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

Request reason:

Yeah that is not me. That does happen to be someone from Kingsgames in Brooklyn. Your on a which hunt You might as well go all the way and block me because, low and behold, we talk. My six kids discussed this at the table. NYLXS members have been on this for a long time now and refuse to edit anything because of the vidictiveness of Wikipedea admins. And now you blocked a 16 year old kid who was listening in on a conversation over beer. Being blocked is a badge of honor, and not a demerit. Wikipedea itself has a strong anti-semetic leaning. It is a cespool of petty egos. In academia, it is disdained, not just because of its board inaccuaracies, but you treat experts like shit. Someone who does 120,000 edits over 12 years needs medicaion, not be placed in charge of editing public knowledge databases

Decline reason:

I rather doubt it's a coincidence that someone who matches your editing style happens to be found to be technically indistinguishable from you. See WP:MEAT. Also, that above rant doesn't help your cause at all. Huon (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You don't have a sample size large enough to make any judgments and your system is faulty anyway. As for my cause, there is NO HOPE in my cause because I will edit the sections I did, fix the bad information and lousy writing, and you will just continue to abuse the admion system. It is how wikipedea works. I bunch of crazy people stalk everyone else until honest users just get sick of it and leave. DOGBERRY God's my life, where's the sexton? let him write down the prince's officer coxcomb. Come, bind them. Thou naughty varlet! CONRADE Away! you are an ass, you are an ass. DOGBERRY Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not suspect my years? O that he were here to write me down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer, and, which is more, a householder, and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that I had been writ down an ass!

Decline reason:

The continued ranting, casting of aspersions and personal attacks makes it clear you're not interested at this time in contributing to the encyclopedia, and for the same reasons your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked. If you have a change of heart before your block expires, you can request an unblock via WP:UTRS; if you don't have one by the time it has expired, you can expect the next block to be indefinite. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 14 January 2018 (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.

BTW - Capitializing subsections is NORMAL and not and editing style and TOP POSTING is what most new users do, espeically when they don't really care a lot. Game Boys problem wasn't his editing, it was his message that the accusatory editor was being vicious without cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 January 2018

It is remarkable to me how you continue to dissemble about your sock-puppetry. User:Gaming boy II is one of your confirmed socks. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as 96.57.23.83 (talk · contribs) in February, 2018. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 17:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]