User talk:Garr1984

Welcome!

Hello, Garr1984, 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! Katr67 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakonda (Ken Kesey)

Thanks for your addition to the article. Do you have a source that shows the filming was also done on the Yaquina River? I changed your edit to read Yaquina Bay, as the references I found show that, but if filming also occurred along the Yaquina River and we have a source that says it, it can be be put back in the article. Thanks and happy editing! Katr67 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about the book--the Internet does have its limitations. If you want to put the river back in the article, here is some help with citation templates for citing book references. I'm going to go ahead and make a references section for the article and change my references to that format. (Not until later tonight though.) Thanks for leading me to the Toledo article, by the way, I see it mentions the "Spruce Squadrons", which is something on which I'd like to see an article. (There's a little bit about this in the Kernville article and you can see how the references thing works as well.) Is there anything in your book about them? P.S. If you type 4 tildes (~~~~) you can make a wikilinked signature with a date stamp. Talk to you later, Katr67 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:The Versatile Burl Ives.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Versatile Burl Ives.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein a Victim of Child Abuse

Hi there, my apologies if it seems like an incorrect revert. Might I suggest you propose the category addition on the talk page first before re-adding it?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Favourite_Square_Dances.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Favourite_Square_Dances.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have added copyright information to this image's description... if anyone can help me make it fit to keep on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate it. Sincerely Garr1984 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)§[reply]

License tagging for Image:Saddam badsanta2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saddam badsanta2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Marg Osburne.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Marg Osburne.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. HermesBot 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Favourite Square Dances.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Favourite Square Dances.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your report to WP:AIV

Hi there. I've removed your vandalism report regarding User:OldakQuill editing on the article Marg Osburne, as it doesn't really qualify as vandalism. The other editor appears to be making automated replacements of the phrase "passed away" with "died"; I believe that's probably the better usage, being more encyclopedic. I don't believe it's in the manual of style anywhere, but "died" seems to work better and is more neutral and factual.

My main concern, though, is your reference to the article as "yours." Please note that nobody owns any articles here, and any article is likely to be edited to improve it by multiple editors. Please keep that in mind. The Osburne article looks to need some cleanup to bring it to encyclopedic quality, so you can expect other people to edit it in the future as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Rugrats characters

An editor has nominated List of Rugrats characters, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rugrats characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Hey Arnold characters

An article you have edited may be deleted. Take a look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Sawyer Hellerick (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Band Era

Thank you for the date correction. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:775jblock.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:775jblock.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Copyright to speak of... I took the picture of the subject of the article myself, about 10 years before she passed away. I do not know how to tag an image one has created oneself so that it will not be deleted... any information or assistance y'all could give me will be appreciated Garr1984 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Bates discography

It would be great to insert a citation for the discography information, if possible.--Soulparadox (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Smiley Bates, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Songs from the Heart, Goin' Home and Songs of Life (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) 03:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for inserting links to the "celebrity fake news hoax generator"(http://www.globalassociatednews.com/) and making personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 03:06, 3 October 2013 (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).

Garr1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Was unaware that the website I got the "death" info from was a hoax. As for making personal attacks, I had a momentary lapse in judgement. I am sorry on both counts. If unblocked, I will make more effort to verify my sources, and will not make personal attacks against other users due to disagreements or for any other reason. Garr1984 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I cannot take your claims below with a straight face. I marvel that you can make them with one, if you did. If you are that oblivious that you missed the banner that was the first thing I saw when I clicked the link, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, much less operating heavy machinery. Nor does the edit linked by Anthony Bradbury below help you in any way, shape or form. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2013 (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.

Please explain how you could link to http://www.globalassociatednews.com/ and not be aware that it was a fake site.—Kww(talk) 03:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of http://www.globalassociatednews.com/ until tonight and therefore was not aware it was a hoax site.Garr1984 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would have needed to have read that big "CELEBRITY FAKE NEWS HOAX GENERATOR" banner more than once?—Kww(talk) 03:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I never saw the banner Garr1984 (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I have sent you an E-mail offering proof that I did not know the "news story" was a hoax.Garr1984 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at http://drake.bell.swell<remove this filter spoiler>server.com/news/top_stories/auto80.php , then why was the only link that you provided to http://www.globalassociatednews.com/ ? Other admins will review this request: I don't find it credible, but I can't refuse it.—Kww(talk) 03:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because, for whatever reason, I was having problems with citing http://drake.bell.swell<remove this filter spoiler>server.com/news/top_stories/auto80.php on Wikipedia. The heading of the page I read said Global Associated News so I just typed in http://www.globalassociatednews.com to cite as my source without even looking at that page. I understand that what I did is wrong, and stupid, and I am making a good faith effort to make things right. Garr1984 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see why you went on that frenzy of talk page editing. Are you sure you don't want to claim that your kids did it, like you did the last time?—Kww(talk) 04:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are being horribly unfair. As far as I can tell, I have followed the instructions for appealing a block to the letter. I have admitted to my error, and have apologized. According to the instructions I read on appealing a block, if a user admits to their mistake and apologizes, the admin should unblock them. Garr1984 (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is getting an admin to believe you. It's not a case of "say the magic words and get unblocked so you can insert hoaxes again." Things like this don't help.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defending your edits with this [1] sort of edit does not help you either. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Comment That Anthony Bradbury refers to is part of the reason I was blocked in the first place. As I have said before, As for making personal attacks, I had a momentary lapse in judgement, and, if eventually unblocked, will refrain from doing so in the future. As for the source for my edit, KWW said that while he did not find the link credible, he also could not refute it. I am sorry for my lapse in judgment, making a disagreement into a personal matter, making attacks, and not making more of an effort to verify that my information sources are good before editing. Garr1984 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looking back I do not see how you escaped censure with this [2] edit, which you re-posted when it was reverted. Another momentary lapse? Some months ago, I concede.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are all being unfair and punitive. The wikipedia guidelines say blocks should never be done for punitive purposes. Furthermore, the guidelines for appealing a block say that if a blocked person follows those guidelines (which I have), they are supposed to be unblocked.

You can always try posting another unblock request. It's remotely possible that you will find that we accidentally appointed an admin that is gullible enough to believe your protests. Neither Daniel nor I can reject a new unblock.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (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).

Garr1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked. I did some things I shouldn't have done, made some edits using information sourced from a very poor source, and made personal attacks against another user in a fit of anger over a disagreement. I know that these actions are wrong, disruptive and unacceptable behaviour. I am sorry for what I have done and if eventually unblocked, agree to refrain from such behaviour in the future. Garr1984 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It wasn't a very poor source, it was a simple and obvious hoax which you defended with antisemitic personal attacks. Mr. Kww did not say "he did not find the link credible, he also could not refute it", he said your unblock request wasn't credible and that he was unable to refuse it. The "reference" was trivial to refute. There also appears to be a long history of erratic behavior, including simple vandalism. The block is not punitive; it is preventing continued disruptive behavior. I'm afraid that you've had integrity problems in the past, so a simple promise is hard to swallow. I would urge you to put some time between your recent edits and your next unblock request. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2013 (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).

Garr1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been some time since the block happened..... I understand that it is against the rules, and just flat out wrong, to vandalize pages with information from hoax websites. I'm sorry for the disruption my actions caused and I would like to be given the opportunity to be a constructive member of wikipedia by having the block removed. Garr1984 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 14 February 2014 (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.

Jamie, he waited four months---granted, that's not quite the six months of the "standard offer," but he did allow time to elapse, and he's said that he won't vandalize again. I'm not involved here in any way, but it seems like the least you could do is give a reason for declining his request. Garr, perhaps you should read and cite relevant policies and be more specific about what you'll refrain from doing if unblocked. 208.122.65.254 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to above: Just now noticed the link; while that type of behavior is certainly blockworthy, does it really necessitate never unblocking him if he agrees to abide by site policies? What about a topic ban, or a sort of "restraining order" to keep him from interacting with the other editor there? Again, I'm just an anonymous IP, but if I were an admin, I'd give him another chance...and if he screwed up then, he'd never get unblocked again. 208.122.65.254 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further addendum: this IP is the sole address for an entire public school district, so please don't assume I'm responsible for all of its past edits. 208.122.65.254 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If eventually unblocked, I will refrain from ever vandalizing a page again, and do my due diligence to thoroughly research sources in order to make constructive edits. If eventually unblocked, I will furthermore refrain from making any kinds of attacks against other users. P.S.: I did not know about the six month ruleGarr1984 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a rule so much as a suggestion, but it is generally abided by from what I've seen on here. Again, I think you should read WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL and be more specific about how you'll apply them to your work. Of course, though, I'm not in position to unblock you, so who knows whether that would actually do you any good. 208.122.65.254 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the powers that be have now blocked one of my roommates.... they think his account is a "Sock Puppet"..... there are actually 5 people in all who use this computer..... Interestingly, I did some digging in regards to the admin who denied my most recent unblock request.... After reading up on him, I am very surprised he didn't at least offer to unblock me if I were willing to pay him $5000, as he has extorted money from fellow Wikipedians before. It is all there for you to read at this link: http://ohnoitsjamiewikipediascammer.wordpress.com/. I ask you..... how is it that someone like that gets to stay on Wikipedia while someone who understands why what they did was wrong, is sorry, and wants another chance continues to be blocked, along with other people who use his computer? Garr1984 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I can trust you after unsuccessfully accusing me of vandalism after I removed clearly explicit content about Drew Pickles of Rugrats fame. If ever, I doubt that there is any chance of an admin accepting your block appeals in future: end of story. --Marianian^(talk) 03:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's where you're wrong........ This story is far from over! Hahahahahaha!Garr1984 (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion your flagrantly untruthful attack on Ohnoitsjamie, which I believe in many media would be considered libellous, renders any chance of ever being unblocked vanishingly small.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither "My" attack, or, "My" untruth...... I found that webpage..... it is someone else's..... Whose? I Don't know.... I merely shared what I had found. I don't know if it is true or not but I certainly wouldn't put it past him given how he has treated other users over the years. It's all there on his talk page if you go back far enough and know what you are looking for...... Over the months I have perused several months worth of archived talk pages for Ohnoitsjamie, and frankly I am appalled..... That the powers that be here on Wikipedia could allow someone like that to continue to be an admin, while blocking someone like me from even editing, proves to me that Wikipedia is not as "Free and Open" as it claims to be..... that there is, in fact, a hierarchy and an agenda, which seems to favor the OhNoItsJamie's of the world.Garr1984 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "scammer" page about me so comical that I link to it from my User:Ohnoitsjamie page. It was created years ago, most likely by someone whose feelings were hurt because I deleted their spam or advert page. That said, I concur with Anthony Bradbury that your chances of becoming unblocked are nearing zero. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go back to polishing my Bentley Continental GT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But.... but.... but...... I'm Sorry! I'm ready to play nice! Garr1984 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2014 (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).

Garr1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been over two years now. I am ready to abide by the rules and be a constructive user of Wikipedia. Garr1984 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said before that you'd abide by the rules and "refrain from making any kinds of attacks against other users" and then proceeded to engage in personal attacks. I see no reason to believe you're more sincere this time. Huon (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (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.

Huon, I can give you two very good reasons I should be unblocked. The passage of time should be the most obvious reason. Secondly, I have done everything the rules say I need to do in order to be unblocked. To not unblock me now would serve no purposes other than punitive ones, and therefore goes against Wikipedia policy..... or..... is it that Admins don't have to follow the rules but everyone else does?Garr1984 (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2015 (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).

Garr1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Look..... all I want is the honest opportunity to prove I have changed my ways. I know everything I did wrong, and I know why it was wrong.... vandalism of pages and personal attacks. It was wrong, unacceptable, and I realize I deserved to be blocked for it..... but isn't two years just a little excessive (particularly considering that the period of time prescribed by Wikipedia Policy is six months)?..... All I want is a chance to prove I am serious about behaving myself on Wikipedia. If there is something, anything, that I can do specifically to prove I have changed my ways, I sure wish an Admin would tell me. Garr1984 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you wait another 6 months and then reapply. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2015 (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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Garr1984. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]