User talk:Dorje108

Footnotes

Funny, your user-page looks a lot like mine - you're quite new to Wikipedia too, aren't you? I started in september 2011. I liked it to found out that there are different ways to create references. It makes it possible to separate notes, book-references and web-references. I guess not everybody will appreciate that, but it can be very useful. See this page as an example. Succes! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd read a lot... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Dorje108, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for improving and expanding Buddhism-related articles, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Maryana said :). I just patrolled Mada (Buddhism) and it looks awesome - keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm granting you the "autopatrolled" user right. This signifies that your new articles are of so high a quality they don't need review by other editors after being created - I hope to see you around more often, and if you need any help, give me a poke :). Ironholds (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indra's net

Hi Dorje108. There's an interesting addition to Indra's net, on duḥkha, giving details on the symbol of a wheel. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the heads up! Looks interesting. I'll try to figure out how to work it into the article on Dukkha. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Gordon White, in "Tantra in practice" also mentions the chakra and the mandala, the movement of time, and the timelessness at the centre. Apparently these are really ancient, and widespread metphors/symbols. I think that someone living in that age and culture, had a whole series of associations with this one word "dukkha", assoiciations which we westerners are lacking. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARYAN

Hello, I do not understand your action... You have delected without justification & discussion.Rajkris (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rajkris, thanks for you note. Please see my comments on the talk page for this article (which I have just added there): Talk:Aryan#Arya_in_Buddhism

Notes

I noticed at Four Noble Truths that you figured out how to use the same notes multiple times. Nice! I'll use it too. Great piece of work, by the way, the article. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, nice to hear from you. Thank you for the feedback! And for keeping an eye on the FNT article. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causality section at Dzogchen

I'm sorry, but this whole section is becoming worse and worse. All you need to do is cite Rongzom. Rongzom is the ultimate authority on these matters, which is why Mipham defers to him. Please read Establishing Appearances as Divine. While Madhyamaka (a sutra level teaching) subscribes to 2 truths, Dzogchen subscribes to 1 truth. 64.134.159.203 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nirvana (Buddhism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmamitra Jeff Stefani's Deletion of your lines

Could this be included as a conversation on the talk page? Is there debate? MaynardClark (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which article are referring to? Dorje108 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avidyā (Buddhism)

Greetings! First of all, I'd like to tell you how I really appreciate your work and effort with the Buddhism related articles! I truly appreciate it.

I recently removed the wikilinks that were appearing twice or more after the lead from the article Avidyā (Buddhism). I noticed however that I also removed some of the wikilinks from the main text that were also present in the See also -section, and I was thinking if it should be the other way around. What do you think?

I know there might be some highly differing views when it comes to the right amount of wikilinking. Personally, I am in favour of the current policy though, and that's the basis on which I've made my recent changes.

Anyway, cheers and keep up the good work you are doing! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation message

I'd like to add you to friends list if there were such in Wikipedia. I very much appreciate your edits (seen just a few but ..) <3 . --Aleksd (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aleksd. Thank you for your kind words. It is nice to be appreciated. Kind regards, Dorje108 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This is for as much as appreciated for your wise contribution towards the world Buddhist community. This is not actually an award. Have a nice day! Wesige putha (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Dorje, (Sorry to mess up your talk page - please feel free to delete this entry after reading). You answered my talk entry about a year or more ago, could I ask you to take another look. Sorry my thoughts are a bit long but I dont know how better to write AND show that this is a valid interpretation. Please see : [[1]] No hurry. Thanks, Robin Taming the hedgehog (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello again Dorje, Sorry. I noticed late that you had reverted my entry and then I put it up again. I had thought wikipedia archived everything and changes were accepted, I'm still not sure about this.

I want to change several words in my present version, but feel at this point it may make things more confusing. I am not a practiced writer : for example I write "now another interpretation occurs to me" I could write "the source text is unclear and could be interpreted in two ways" - please dont judge me by my ability to write scientifically.

The most important question is : am i right on wikipedia or is there a better place for me to discuss this. i want to find people who are familiar with the material in the other source texts (the Tittha is perhaps especially interesting). I see things in terms of the Mahasatipatthana i want to communicate with other buddhist perspectives.

robin (the hedgehog)Taming the hedgehog (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin. I respect your perseverance in studying this topic and I encourage you to keep at it. It is always inspiring to see someone studying and contemplating the dharma. However, as you guessed in your question, Wikipedia is not really the appropriate forum for the type of discussions you are looking for. I recommend trying the Dharma Wheel discussion forum for Theravada Buddhism (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewforum.php?f=13). In my research, I have come across some interesting discussions on this board from which I have learned some valuable information. I think you may find people there who are interesting in the type of back-and-forth discussion you are looking for. Kind regards, Dorje108 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of the Buddha

Hi Dorje108. This paper may be of interest to you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that the Karma in Buddhism article

Hi Dorje108, just to say, sorry to see so much of the Karma in Buddhism article deleted recently. I for one think it was an excellent article and didn't deserve to be treated in this way. I've added a strong protest on its talk page, for what it is worth. Robert Walker (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also backed your version of the article to my user space User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism where I'll refer to it if I need to look up something on Karma in Buddhism. Wikipedia would be a better place if there were more editors like you. Robert Walker (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thank you for your kind words. Very much appreciated. Unfortunately, the same editor who rewrote the article on Karma also rewrote an article on the Four Noble Truths that I liked very much. Bit of a pattern developing here. I have been very busy lately and I haven't yet figured out the best way to respond. I will probably try posting a message on the Wikiproject Buddhism page, but I need to clarify my thoughts on this. In any case, I have a feeling it will be a long process to attempt to rectify the situation (if it is at all possible). But try we must. :) Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dorje, you know I appreciate your contributions, and the friendly tone that always shines forth from your responses. So, it hurts me to hurt your hard efforts in this respect.

Nevertheless, I've repeatedly pointed out my issues with the four truths article, without avail: too many quotes (and for Robert: I'm not the only editor in this regard), too one-sided in it's choice of quotes and authors. The point is, your articles give, in a subtle manner, an interpretation of the topic, harmonising the differences, "ironing out" the various interpretations that may be possible. They read more like extensive Buddhist treatises, than as encyclopdical entries. As Tibetan Buddhist treatises, to be more precise. You are more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism than I am, but what I know from Tibetan texts, is that they "clarify" an issue by extensive quotes from other sources.

What I would like to see is where an issue "wrenches" (I don't know if that's the correct word; in Dutch I'd say "schuurt", as in "sandpaper"): different interpretations, unclarities which can't be solved. An up-to-date overview of scholarly points of view. For example, the fact that "Pain and it's ending", by Carol Anderson, was missing from the 4 truths article, really surprised me.

So, my apologies for insulting you by so drastically editing those articles. Again, your responses always strike me as very kind, and give me the feeling you must be a fine person (this may be a "Dutchanism" (from "Germanism")). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backed up Four Noble Truths also - and content dispute experiences

Hi Dorje, thanks, I've backed up your Four Noble Truths article also, and blogged about them both on my Quora blog "Some ideas about Buddhist teachings" here Recently Destroyed Wikipedia Articles on Karma in Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths by Dorje108.

As you suggest, it's been my own experience also, in another unrelated topic (in the general topic area of planetary protection in space exploration) that there isn't much you can do when this happens.

It was a rather similar situation - I responded originally to an invite on a wikipedia page for editors with knowledge of the subject to write something to expand a very short stub section. Ended up working on this topic in wikipedia for several months and put a lot of work into it.

But then I attempted to create a new article on the possibility of back contamination of Earth by microbes from Mars. It was a scholarly article with many citations for every paragraph in the article, so again rather a similar situation. This has been a topic of many workshops and articles, and some books - there is a lot written on the subject. But another editor came along and deleted much of that article, similar thing, deleted whole sections all extensively cited, without comment or prior discussion.

Eventually the disputing editors took it to a deletion debate and got the whole article deleted, and I was astonished to find, that there was no discussion of the sources for the article in the deletion debate.

The main problem here was that interplanetary contamination conflicts with Mars colonization - and many editors are keen on colonization and so are naturally not that favourably disposed towards including content on contamination issues, which might slow down or prevent colonization, and get upset by it.

I tried requests for comment, third opinion, posted to the relevant wikiproject pages, and when that didn't work, I took the dispute all the way to arbitration. I tried really really hard, for a month or so, to try to get it sorted out. And the end result of all my attempts was that even more of the content was deleted - by myself and by other editors on the topic.

In the end, everything I had ever written on the subject was removed from Wikipedia along with content by other editors - they went through my edit history and removed entire sections from wikipedia even if I had just contributed a couple of sentences, and deleted two other articles on the subject that I hadn't contributed to at all, as well as the one originally deleted. They also came close to topic banning me on the subject from wikipedia.

However that had its positive side also. I ended up writing a blog on Science20 on the subject instead, and then got invited to talk a couple of times on a prestigious radio podcast in the states, The Space Show (programs of a couple of hours long of the host interviewing me on the topic, not just a sound-bite) also about the subject, and now write about it on Quora as well, where I've recently been listed as one of their top contributors for 2014 mainly because of my writings on that subject. So, in the end probably more people ended up getting interested in the subject and learning more about the topic than could have happened as a result of writing on wikipedia. Also there are two articles left on the subject in Wikipedia, Interplanetary contamination and Planetary protection and I was permitted to continue work on those. And because I haven't been topic banned, I can continue to attempt to write on this elsewhere in wikipedia, just don't because I know I'll probably get the same reactions as before from the Mars colonization enthusiasts.

Wikipedia I think does sort itself out eventually, but it takes many years sometimes, perhaps five or ten years later it might be sorted out. Many areas that were really poor ten years ago are now excellent.

It doesn't at all reflect on your abilities as an editor. These other editors - they are simply editing the encyclopedia to match their own ideas of what they think it should be like. They are not "right" about this in any absolute sense. Just more forceful.

I think it is worth making a post about it to the project talk page, as it may get some people thinking, but not to expect too much, it's not likely to achieve much in my experience.

Quora suggestion

However, have you thought about writing for quora? Many wikipedia editors I think end up writing there instead. Many people asking questions about Buddhism, Meditation - and the Dalai Lama particularly is a top topic for questions - many post questions want to know more about what his beliefs are. And there aren't enough Buddhists there answering these questions. I do my best to give a few answers here and there but my knowledge is very limited! You can also start a blog there. I will look forward to reading your content if you do write for quora. You get lots of readers there. I've got lots of answers now, mainly on Mars and space colonization and planetary protection - so goes up as you answer more questions, but currently it's running at over 7,000 views a week for my content there, just to give an example.

It is also much more friendly than Wikipedia. And - nobody can edit your content, just comment on it and suggest edits. So typically questions have many answers, and good answers get voted up, and then their authors get followed by readers who are interested in what they have to say and then read other answers by the same author. It works really well. Just a thought.

Re-use of your wikipedia content elsewhere

You could also copy your old articles into a quora blog and work on them there. Just a suggestion again. Sadly copy / paste of wikipedia into other pages often loses much of the wikipedia formatting, so it is a fair bit of work getting it into shape again. But preserves the text.

Also, just to say - it is permitted to re-use wikipedia content elsewhere, by the wikipedia license. An easy way to fulfill their attribution requirements is simply to include a link to the history page of the original article so that your readers can check attribution for the content. I did that also with my Interplanetary Contamination content - copied some of it as new articles to my Science20 blog with attribution links back to Wikipedia.

Just a few ideas and suggestions, in case any of it might help. Keep up the good work! Robert Walker (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backups

Hi Dorje, hope it's okay all these messages, no hurry or need to reply.

But just to say Joshua Jonathan has pointed out that we can't keep old revisions of articles in user space indefinitely which I hadn't realized. It's because of the issue of attribution if the content is reintroduced to the main space after a gap when other editors have been editing the article - that it is then very hard to tell who created the content that was copied back from your user space.

See Wikipedia:User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_articles.

So anyway I've labelled them as user space drafts for now, as we both hope that this content will get restored to wikipedia - and the attribution will not be hard to trace if they are restored quickly with only a month or so of editing in between, so I'd imagine that would be okay.

Longer term, if they are not restored, then I will look into backing them up elsewhere. If nowhere else, it would be easy to just save a copy of the page offline, and and then upload it to my own website as a stop gap.

I have just backed them up to my user space also.

http://robertinventor.com/Dorje108/4_noble_truths.html

http://robertinventor.com/Dorje108/Karma_In_Buddhism.html

Though they may look like wikipedia pages - and all the links on the page take you back here, they are not hosted on wikipedia. It would need more editing to remove the wikipedia framing etc. This is just a temporary "stop gap".

But it means they can't be deleted by any wikipedia editing action. You can also of course easily save copies of it yourself and upload it anywhere in the same way, with the only requirement that's necessary to keep within the requirements of the wikipedia content license, to include a link that reader can use to check attribution - in this case I just linked to the history page at the point the old revision was copied from. Robert Walker (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment (RfC)

I expect you have considered it, but - after you do your post to the project page - we could also do a Request for Comments on the articles.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

With you and me both in favour of keeping your version of the articles, that's sufficient so that it would surely not be closed swiftly but would need detailed discussion. And RfCs are well structured, you get to put your own point under a bullet point, your vote and reason for your vote, as does everyone else, and a separate area for comments.

They do need co-operation from the other editors though, and it says there that you have to start the process with an attempt at resolution by discussion on the user's talk page.

So not sure it would work in this case, so just mentioning that I'd support you if you want to do an action like this or anything else.

Or if I can help in any other way do say! Robert Walker (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've put my vote in the Support section, looks great the way you set it out. Robert Walker (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also contributed to the discussion. Hopefully in a way that is helpful. And publicised the RfC on a couple more of the main articles on Buddhism, hopefully get a few more contributors to the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I think it is okay to include the text of the RfC in the announcement on talk pages etc, as it is neutrally worded. When I've seen RfCs announced before, this is how it is done. So I've been doing that myself. It gives readers a clearer idea of whether it is something that interests them.

Also, I had an idea today, to post about this RfC to the talk pages of notable Buddhist scholars of both types. So to Richard Gombrich, Dalai Lama etc. I think we can avoid WP:CANVAS here because, first, the 300+ watchers of Dalai Lama are not going to be all Tibetan Buddhists by any means, could be equally much Westerners - and then also help avoid any bias by posting to talk pages of notable scholars of both types, and finally, also, by adding a note encouraging others reading the announcement to share it likewise. And seems to me that editors of the talk pages of notable Buddhists of either type are likely to be those most informed when it comes to discussions of whether they are suitable as secondary sources for other articles in Wikipedia.

With only six contributing so far, and only four of those actively discussing it with comments of any length, I think it can do with more interaction. I'll do that later tonight. Robert Walker (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct for Joshua Jonathan

Dorje, on reflection I've been wondering if we have a case for a rollback based on user conduct for Joshua Jonathan. I don't know if we do but thought I might ask Robert McClennon. He has given me good advice in the past on user policy in Wikipedia.

It's just a thought for now, have posted about it here, see what anyone says, and give him an opportunity to reflect on what I said first before I take it further.

Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Point_of_procedure_and_I_wonder_if_we_have_a_case_for_a_rollback_based_on_user_conduct_by_Joshua_Jonathan

Robert Walker (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. I am going to add a post on the Wikiproject Buddhism page, as well as take your suggestion on the Rfc. A key issue here is Jonathan's assertion that only Western academics can be considered as reliable secondary sources. I don't think this is a supportable position, but this point can be clarified through appropriate Rrf (hopefully quickly). As regards to Jonathan's conduct, use you best judgement. He has certainly practiced canvassing (WP:CANVAS) in the past, and probably still is. I am going to focus on the Wikiproject and Rfc for the moment. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the balanced wording of your RfC. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, okay I'll think it over. I might just mention it to Robert McClenon, ask if we have a case for a rollback and what wikipedia user guidelines etc are for such sudden large scale changes in an article. Purely as a matter of user conduct, seemed to me we might possibly be some kind of case for action of some sort. If so I wouldn't just go ahead, but would refer back here with the findings, and see if you want to take it any further, whatever he says. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, not done anything yet, am going to give it another day or two, but then I think I will ask him. Because - seems to me this must be something comes up a fair bit. The most popular articles in wikipedia - they must get enthusiastic editors who try to rewrite the entire article and remove most of the content, quite often. So must be a fair bit of experience in how to handle this sort of situation to draw on. So - well I'll follow this up soon. Robert Walker (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, sadly it is referred to as Tendentious editing. See WP:TENDENTIOUS. I am respectfully considering a similar step. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje108, you are the last person who should be making that claim.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, I've just posted to Robert McClenon's talk page here, he has been really helpful in the past. It is just a request for information I said that I don't want to take any action right now and will report back to you. He is an experienced editor who as you can see from his talk page is primarily involved in dealing with user conduct issues on Wikipedia so I think hopefully he can give us good advice. Hope it helps, thanks! User_talk:Robert_McClenon#User_Conduct_issue_for_Karma_in_Buddhism_and_Four_Noble_Truths 14:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion in this matter, and have very little knowledge about Buddhism. Discuss on an article talk page or follow dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, sorry seems I presented the issue in a confusing fashion. He thought I was asking for a neutral third party to resolve the issue, not asking for advice on procedures.

But after clarification - Robert McClenon said this: "If you think that another editor essentially destroyed an article by boldly rewriting it and leaving out scholarly information, then my advice would be start another Request for Comments on whether to restore the stable version of the article."

I wonder if it has any chance of success with Joshua Jonathan voting against us of course, and probably Victoria also... I have asked this as a follow up question here: User_talk:Robertinventor#Do_you_think_that_he_destroyed_the_article.3F. On reflection not sure it is so promising. Is up to you, anyway will see if he says any more. Robert Walker (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje - on reflection I'm not too hopeful about this. Interested to hear if you have any further thoughts. If it is a lost cause it might be we just have to give up on the whole thing.

Perhaps if I had spotted Joshua Jonathan's edits sooner and done an immediate revert and asked him to discuss them first, it might have been different, as in BRD, but maybe it is just too late for that now, after reflecting on Robert McClenon's comments.

But I'm here to support any initiatives and ideas you have. And if you want to do a RfC to revert the article as he suggested support you on that if you think it has any hope. Just talking about this idea of a rollback. RfC on Buddhist sources seems worth doing for a bit longer perhaps.

And just to remind you - that over on http://quora.com there is a real shortage of knowledgeable Buddhists to answer all the questions there about Buddhism. If you are interested. Wish I had better or clearer news for a way ahead. Robert Walker (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I will continue follow through with the RFC process. I will likely post a second RFC based on the current discussion. It is a slow process, but I think it helps to clarify the situation. Also, another editor has just voted in support of the current RFC! I am not sure why so few editors have joined the discussion; I have a feeling more will participate eventually. The RFC should remain on the talk page for one month; so there is time for more editors to respond. Also, I read your discussion with Robert McClenon on his talk page. I appreciate your effort to seek his advice as well as his suggestions. I haven't been involved in this type of disagreement before, so it was helpful for me to see his perspective. We are actually following the first steps of dispute resolution, so best to follow through with that for now.

Sorry to hear that you are feeling discouraged. I am truly grateful for all of the effort that you have put into this discussion, because it has helped clarify the issues for me (and hopefully other editors). But if you need to take a break for a little while, that is perfectly OK too! As you mentioned awhile back, it helps to take the long-term view. So taking your time to respond to comments can sometimes be more productive in the long run. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, thanks that's right. Yes it helps a bit to slow down the pace also, others can be more thoughtful too if one takes a while responding to comments. Thanks for reading the discussion with Robert McClenon. Also just to say one other thing there. I got in touch with him originally by posting a question to the help desk. Hadn't thought of that until he reminded me - but it is a place where you can post questions about almost anything to do with wikipedia editing, and get some help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Just thought that might be a useful resource to know about, sort of for similar questions to the one that I asked Robert McClenon about. Well you can get the idea from looking at the page, it has people asking about just about anything there.

Just read the new "Support" on the RfC, thought Andi 3ö makes a very good point there, to think about what interests typical readers of wikipedia. Good to see a few more comments to the RfC. And good discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Do_contemporary_Buddhist_teachers_.28with_no_western_academic_credentials_in_studies_related_to_Buddhism.29_count_as_primary_or_secondary_sources.3F though seems not many have commented on the RfC, I wonder if another reminder of it is worth a mention there...

Glad my efforts in the discussion have helped clarify issues. Yes I'll try to take the long view. And may take a break, e.g. just not checking in on Wikipedia some days can help slow down pace of interaction :).

BTW this may also be of interest: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. For instance there is this long list of editors who offer to do feedback in RfCs in Philosophy and Religion which you can ask for more interaction Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service#Religion_and_philosophy. So that could be a way to get a few more contributions on the RfC, so long as you pick a few at random with no idea what their views are likely to be on the subject. They'd come from a more general background of course, not just Buddhist, but that could be interesting also.

I might publicize the RfC in a few more talk pages for relevant Wikipedia articles. Just possibly might draw the attention of a few more editors though I'm not sure it made too much difference when I did this before. I think may help to use the RfC title and include the body of the text as well when publicizing it, which is what I did for the last few I did, so may take a look at that a bit later. But apart from all this - well as you say I've put a lot into this discussion over the last few days, it might be a good time to let up a bit, and take a break for a day or two. After all there are a few more people also now getting involved in the discussion too. Best Regards, Robert Robert Walker (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on what improves the article

Robert, BTW, some good points here on focusing on what improves the article regardless or what the rules say: WP:IGNORE. This is actually the first point listed in the guidelines: WP:POLICYLIST. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a helpful comment :). Best regards, Robert Walker (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gelug Geshes

The Gelug school has highly unusual perspectives, which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. I would never read or cite Gelug Geshes. See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Didn't know that; cool. Thanks. Please tell us: in what respects did he deviate? Or should I (we) just read the sources? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I asked that question as well, but Victoria gave no answer, just said I should read the books, which is not possible at present as I am on a Scottish island with no access to libraries. But as far as I know, the Gelugpas are counted as Buddhists along with the other branches of Tibetan Buddhism, and indeed as rather similar to them, far closer to other forms of Tibetan Buddhism than to say, Therevadhan or Zen varieties of Buddhism. So whatever "highly unusual" might mean it is surely not "non Buddhist"? And note that the article just gives criticism, not only no details about what the issue is, but no details of how the Gelugpas reply to those criticisms. As for teachings arising in a vision, that's not a criticism per se, as that's acceptable in Tibetan Buddhism. Much like the way teachings can arise spontaneously in Zen Buddhism. Question is - are those teachings arising from non self and enlightenment or from illusion and self clinging? So that would presumably be what discussion would focus on.

And I think part of the test would be compatibility with the Buddha's teachings - in the case of the Dorje Shugden controversy I think the main reason the Dalai Lama says it is not enlightened in inspiration is because they do practices designed to prevent other Gelugpas (including the Dalai Lamas himself of course) from exploring the teachings in other forms of Tibetan or other Buddhism to avoid "contaminating the pure Gelugpa faith" which would seem to go directly against the Buddha's teachings to do that, for instance his many teachings on listening to teachers of all faiths, and making up your own mind about the teachings, not letting anyone else tell you what to think or believe, and warnings about causing a schism in the community. And the Dalai Lama also says that to do those practices will shorten his own life (presumably because surely he is not about to stop doing the practices in the other three schools himself). I.e. he isn't saying what he says based on some magical understanding of whether Dorje Shugden is a demon or not (after all he only started saying this after they came up with these new practices based on him), but based on what they teach as a result, and the compatibility of what they say with the Buddha dharma in the sutras etc, if I understand this right. Saying that based on his own understanding of the dharma, this is not a suitable practice to follow, and so as a result he doesn't want those who practice in this way, trying to prevent Gelugpas from following non Gelugpa Buddhist practices - to attend his transmissions (which it is the right for a teacher to do, to decide who can attend).

So - if there is some issue here, it would be something like that I expect. Some apparently clear conflict with the Buddha's teachings, would it not? Otherwise why is it a problem? Robert Walker (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama

The Gelug school, including the Dalai Lama, has highly unusual perspectives on many topics which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. See HERE for example.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Address this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future RfCs

Hi Dorje, just to say, first I realize on reflection that I never gave you an opportunity to comment on Robert McClenon's idea of an RfC on whether to roll back to the earlier more mature version of the articles. If you do want to do that I will of course support you.

If you did, perhaps we would need to go to the help desk as I know Robert McClenon is not interested in this topic area, so it would make sense to try and get support from someone else for the process of preparing the RfC and other aspects of wikipedia procedure and for more advice about how to do it.

Also - I had an idea for a future RfC - what about giving a couple of examples - not teachers - but actual texts? The few very top sources by Tibetan Buddhists most likely to be widely accepted as good secondary sources? Because just one such accepted secondary source would be enough to have motivation for the older version of the article with more emphasis on topics of interest to modern Buddhists. And that I think is the main principle we want to establish, that there exist secondary sources by Tibetan and Pali and Sri Lanakan etc authors that are as good, as secondary sources, as the best of the Western scholarly sources.

So - could say something like "Are sources such as ... and ... and ... and ... - (a list of some of the best texts available) acceptable as secondary sources in articles on Buddhism?

Then it becomes something very concrete. I think many of the current Oppose votes would turn into a Support with an RfC like that. For instance if you listed the very best book by the Dalai Lama - then I would imagine that most would support that as a source except Victoria (obviously) and maybe Joshua Jonathan. So then it would make the whole thing far clearer, what the issue is.

Also - just to say - if you thought it would help in any way it is fine to mention me as an author in the RfC, if you felt it would help with two names to it. Just an offer if it helps in any way, not a suggestion. Robert Walker (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to request assistance from a volunteer moderator

Hi Dorje, just to say, Robert just posted to my talk page, suggesting that we can request assistance from a volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard. See User_talk:Robertinventor#Try_WP:DRN Robert Walker (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. Thanks for the note. I will get back to you later today or tomorrow. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, thanks glad you got it. No rush :). I'm on holiday, staying with relatives, just got your note - not checking wikipedia much for a few days. Best regards, Robert Walker (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at filling out the content dispute notice

Hi Dorje, back from my holiday now.

I just tried filling out the form at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request as a trial to see how it goes and hopefully understand the process better. Not submitting it of course. Just for discussion.

So, I got

Location of dispute

Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism

(you have to give a single url for the location as far as I can see)

Dispute overview

Moved this to: User:Robertinventor/Buddhism_Articles_DRN_Notice_Details

Users involved

Joshua Jonathan, VictoriaGrayson, JimRenge, Dorje108, Robertinventor

Resolving the dispute

What other steps, if any, have you tried to resolve this dispute? RfC on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism and also, extensive discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism, Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism, Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism/Archive_1, Talk:Four_Noble_Truths, Talk:Four_Noble_Truths/Archive_2, Talk:Nirvana_(Buddhism), Talk:Dzogchen, User_talk:Robertinventor, and User talk:Dorje108.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Other neutral editors can help by first reviewing the list of issues to check that we have a case that needs resolution. Then, if that is accepted, we would appreciate advice about how to take this further.

Is any volunteer interested to help guide us through the Wikipedia processes to a resolution
Or does anyone have any suggestions about how to resolve it?
If disputes like this can't be resolved, we would also like to know that.

Summary of dispute by Robert Walker

I got involved as a reader, not an editor. Previously, the articles were excellent. My only talk page posts were to ask editors if they could help improve other parts of wikipoedia.

If the articles can be rolled back to their previous mature state, and the editors can resume collaborative editing following the guidelines, then I will feel that they are once more in safe hands.

For details of the issues with the articles, as I see them, see: User:Robertinventor/Buddhism_Articles_DRN_Notice_Summary_by_Robert_Walker

Discussion

Anyway - that's as far as I got, also looked at some of the previous notices there. It is just a thought, don't know if this is the way ahead, or what to do. Robert Walker (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. Traveling at the moment. Looks good. Will add comments this evening. Dorje108 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I have had time to take a closer look at your suggested comments. I think it looks good. On the section "How do you think we can help?", experienced editors can help by reviewing Jonathan's edits and his reasoning for the edits to determine if he is actually following Wikipedia guidelines. I don't think that he is. A consistent pattern is that if Jonathan sees two sources giving different points of view, he decides that one source must be correct and the other must be incorrect. This is not a constructive approach. So I think you have made a good presentation of the problem and it is worth submitting. I think you are likely to have more time to focus on this, so it makes sense for you to submit the request and I will try to comment as much as I can on the process. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, okay I'm happy to do that since it is an early stage, just asking for help about whether and how we can take it further.

Yes I've noticed the same thing. Have rewritten my own section to mention this. Maybe you can say the same in your section? I've thought a bit about whether to mention this also in "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" but can't think what to say, it just didn't read right, not neutral enough. Maybe it works better as a question in our individual sections than in that section, and if several editors say essentially the same thing in different ways it may make more of an impression anyway. Do edit and rewrite anything I've said above.

BTW by reviewing his edit history, I noticed that he did extensive rewrites of Dzogchen as well, many in the last week, and another spate of editing it earlier in the year. I looked back to the version of this article as it existed back in summer 2014 [Dzogchen 24 May 2014 and again - same pattern extensive rewrite, with almost no talk page discussion, even to just to summarize how he has modified the article. Much prefer the old article. Robert Walker (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more editing of my section, hopefully help a bit with clarity - after looking at the notice board some of the sections are quite long so I think acceptable. Will leave it a bit though, probably a few days, what's the hurry, and think it over a bit more. I don't want to rush into it. Interested in your thoughts, but don't feel there is any hurry at all to reply! Robert Walker (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit more editing and I thought it would be best to mention his edits of Dzogchen as well, and have also posted about them to the talk page of that article here: Talk:Dzogchen#Many_changes_in_this_article. Does that sound good to you? Also, are there any other articles he applied this treatment to, that might be good to mention here? Robert Walker (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more editing, covering issues such as the short lede, and tendency to simplify or remove information on complex subjects, and revert of your attempt at BRD, and also added Nirvana (Buddhism) which you mentioned on Incidents#Disruptive_talkpage_behaviour Robert Walker (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved the example of BRDR to the discussion section. As for how to take it further, it may be a bit long for a DRN notice. If so, perhaps I'll do a shorter summary section of both the Discussion section and my own contribution - with links to longer versions for the details as sub pages of my user space. For instance I could just focus on the Karma in Buddhism article in the discussion - and brief summary of the many issues, and link to a sub page for more details. Robert Walker (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A friend on facebook just suggested, it will help if I go through and say which specific wikipedia guidelines each of the main issues violates. So have done that, which may help. Found guidelines so far for all except the issue of errors due to over rapid editing. Robert Walker (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New version

After reflection, I think we need to keep the notice focused on the procedure. If it starts a discussion on the DRN of the issues themselves, it will go on for ever with no resolution as usual - and will put off editors who may be interested to help us.

So I'm now considering doing it like this:

Dispute overview (new version)

Joshua Jonathan recently did a bold rapid rewrite of several mature articles on Buddhism, Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Nirvana (Buddhism) and Dzogchen. I am involved here as a reader rather than an editor, dismayed to find one of my favourite articles on Buddhism here, as I see it, ruined.

Some editors think his edits are improvements. Others think, as I do, that he has essentially ruined several mature articles.

His edits consisted of:

Removing many sections
Adding new sections
Re-arranging and rewriting existing material
Shortening the lede for three of the articles to a couple of sentences
Removing many quotes
Adding new quotes
Change the weighting
Removing material that is of central interest to many readers

Jonathan also he has a tendency to fix on "preferred sources", often relatively obscure Western academic scholars, and remove material critical of them, or that present alternatives. When presented with sources presenting different points of view, Jonathan typically determines that one source must be "correct", and therefore the other sources are "incorrect".

Also, any editor doing such a rapid rewrite of mature articles like this, previously scrutinized by many editors, is bound to introduce errors, and indeed he did. These four articles between them cover much of the entire range of Buddhist scholarship.

He is not willing to enter into BRD. For an example, early on in his rewrites of one of the articles he made these changes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=629944002&oldid=629940742

Dorje tried to stop him to discuss his edits first, with a revert with the comment "Please discuss proposed changes on talk page before making major edits."

But he immediately reverted, with a comment claiming that Dorje was engaging in WP:OWN. He then proceeded to make many more substantial changes to this article. And has applied a similar treatment to the other three articles.

He has been asked to roll back to the mature articles and go through the process more slowly, but he is not prepared to do this.

The main problem we face, is that, with so many issues, there is no single point to focus on, e.g. for an RfC. Talk page discussion just goes on and on without any progress.

Please, can the discussion here be focused on procedure, rather than the issues themselves? If we discuss the issues themselves, I expect that the usual debate will start up again and we won't resolve anything.

To help with this, I've put a summary of the issues here for more detailed background: will be a copy of the section above.

I suggest the editors do the same - put any detailed reasoning in their user space and only a short summary here, as this is not the focus at this stage.

We are at a loss as to what to do next. Is there anyone here who would be interested to guide us through the process of dealing with these issues? Or does anyone have any suggestions about ways to resolve it?

Indeed also, please let us know if it is something that you can't do anything about. Then we will know to give up, forget about wikipedia articles on Buddhism, and get on with other things. Dorje, who previously was one of the main contributors to all four articles, has already more or less stopped editing wikipedia, not surprisingly.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I added some bullet points to your text above for clarity. I found your longer version of the dispute overview to be very clear, but I am not sure how long the overview is supposed to be. FYI, I have had very little input into the Dzogchen article. I have been more focused on the basic concepts. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje, okay great, thanks! I've just corrected that section of my part, above, as "(Dorje is one of the main editors of three of the articles, all except Dzogchen where he made minor corrections and edits - and pretty much the sole editor of Karma in Buddhism for 2012 - 2013)". Also, if you see anything else to fix, either in the summary discussion, or in my section also - feel free to just correct it, or mention the issue, whatever seems best to you. Best, Robert Walker (talk)

On the length, yes, I'm not sure either. Just now, checking the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard the Dispute overview it seems is usually very short, a sentence or two, with details of the issues then in the contributions by individuals. So maybe we need something much shorter. Though I don't see why it can't link to the longer version as "details" in use space. I have ideas for a very short version, so will have a go at drafting one out sometime soon, more later. Robert Walker (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the archived details are longer, so I think we are okay with a somewhat longer details section but probably best not too long. Robert Walker (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute overview (latest version, very short)

Joshua Jonathan recently did a rapid major revision of four mature articles on Buddhism. For the extent of the changes, see Bold rapid rewrites of mature articles.

His given motivation is to remove a lot of what he calls WP:UNDUE stuff, to remove details which he considers unnecessary, and to rewrite the articles based on a POV presented in a book by Carol Anderson. For details see Motivations given for these rewrites

Jim Renge and VictoriaGrayson are of the opinion that his edits improve wikipedia.

While Dorje108 and myself are of the opinion that his edits violate several core guidelines and policies of wikipedia, including:

For details of the violations of these guidelines (in our opinion) - see Main issues.

He used BRDR instead of BRD, so other editors couldn't stop the rewrites. See Attempt at BRD and request for rollback

We have asked for a rollback to the previous versions and a slower discussion, one issue at a time, following wikipedia guidelines. However he is not willing to do this, and presents his new versions as a "fait accomplis".

The main problem we encounter is the large number of issues involved. Any discussions quickly get caught up in details. We have been discussing this for weeks now, and got nowhere.

If editors wish to present their take on the issues, I suggest you do a short summary here - and put any detailed exposition of your case into your user space and link to that. I will do the same in my section.

Meanwhile, let's focus this discussion on the actual processes we might be able to use to come to a resolution. Otherwise the usual debates will resume and we will get nowhere yet again.

Thanks!

Probably won't be able to do the DRN Notice now, Sorry!

It looks pretty certain I'm going to be effectively blocked from posting to wikipedia talk pages. Max of 1500 characters a day per talk page, and 3 edits per day per page, including to my own user talk page. It's going to be hard to even communicate with other editors here on wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_max_1.2C500_bytes_a_day_for_Robert_Walker

Obviously impossible to do a DRN notice within that restriction. Am writing a few posts now, while I still am permitted to communicate freely.

Sorry about this. Wish I could have helped more! If anyone else wants to take this up then the drafts here may be useful. But I'd warn anyone who tries, that you may risk getting some similarly draconian response yourself!! And that the whole thing can blow up apparently from nowhere, when you think it is all over. Robert Walker (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result no outcome, so DRN can go ahead once more

Result was no outcome and I've developed some Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments which should help in the future. So. after a break of a week or so from wikipedia, is once again a "go" for the DRN notice. Robert Walker (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold again

JJ has now taken me back to ANI, this time proposing a topic ban on all articles on India, Buddhism and Hinduism. If this goes ahead, of course I can't do the DRN notice. And meanwhile it can't be submitted while the ANI action is in progress.

So anyway - not much I can do except see what happens there. Instead will take the opportunity to work on the DRN notice some more. Will also depend on Dorje108 to review it. But - well probably will be at least a week before we can submit it. So - though it is pretty much finished, let's take our time and do the best job we can of it.

Of course - I won't be able to submit it at all if I get banned, and don't want to predict or prejudge the outcome. Will just see what happens. All one can do is do ones best in a situation like this! Robert Walker (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's deja vu all over again! Robert can you clarify the latest version of your DNI proposal so that I can review it finally. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is, isn't it. Right, I'll make a copy of the whole thing, ready to submit to DRN, into my user space for you to review. Will take the opportunity to look it over again myself also. Probably will have time to do this tomorrow with some luck. Robert Walker (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to do some work on it tonight, so this is my draft, but I'll review it again tomorrow DRN Notice Draft Robert Walker (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI has been archived so is no longer active and we can go ahead with the DRN notice, Hurray!.

I've done some more work on it now, and as far as I'm concerned it is now ready. What do you think? Do say if you notice anything at all to fix: DRN Notice Draft . I don't know of anything else we need to do, except to get someone to close the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to ANI again, and now they are proposing a site ban! Robert Walker (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done more work on the DRN notice draft, major revisions of it - you might like to review it. It doesn't seem likely that we'll be able to submit it this weekend as the ANI is still underway. So maybe we can take the opportunity to look it over some more - and perhaps - if I am permitted to submit it - we can do it the end of next week or so? DRN notice draft Robert Walker (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert, I will review again. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Xmas

AN/I snafu

Hello D. Your edit here got reverted when I was fixing a batch of edits that an IP made which refactored another editors comments. Many apologies. I thought about adding the parenthetical back into the comment but it is probably better it you do it. Many apologies for that. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The action has just been closed, so it is basically a mute point now. :) Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims don't make sense

Your claims don't make sense. Before you edited the Karma in Buddhism article, the editors were trying to get featured article status. Then you came along and deleted academic material. You can compare the version before you started editing to your last revision. You yourself admit that your complaint is that Joshua Jonathan reversed your edits. So for RW to refer to your version as the "mature article" reeks of ownership behavior, not to mention being utter nonsense. Basically you and RW exhibit ownership behavior. In your minds you can edit an article all you want, but noone else is allowed to. This is problematic since you stuff Buddhism articles with nonacademic contemporary Buddhist teachers and even other Wikis, which mirrors your nonunderstanding of Buddhism and Wikipedia policy. Also you might not be aware that I strongly complained about your edits long before any of these disputes.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

@Dorje108: - I've just posted an RfC to the Four Noble Truths talk page, posting here as you used to be the main editor of the article:

"Is the word redeath commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede? "

Do respond here if you want to take part:

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]