User talk:Lionheart0317

Lionheart0317, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lionheart0317! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Liz (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lionheart0317. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cudworth's mother

Hi Eebahgum, the arguments for John Machell and Ursula Hynde being the correct parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth Stoughton has already been litigated on several genealogical newsgroups and blog spaces. By informing you of where the current argument stands and the current conclusion wasn't an invite to reopen this topic. It seems clear, even to the lay person, that by looking at the evidence without any preconceived notions, the most novice genealogist/historian would conclude that John Machell, and not his brother Matthew, was the actual father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth Soughton. The current conclusion reached after protracted debate by several genealogists is here, which states: "Summary, the connection of two of Ursula (Hynde) Machell's first cousins to the household of Prince Henry (whom Mary Machell also served), together with the existence of the 1584 Hackney baptism record of Mary Machell among the presumed children of John and Ursula Machell, together with the fact that Ursula (Hynde) Machell at the end of her life moved to Cambridge, where Ralph Cudworth (Jr.) had just finished his studies and begun his career, indicates that John Machell, and not his brother Matthew, was the father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth." --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, But this is not a situation in which the appearances to "the most novice genealogist/historian" (to use your terms) ought to have much weight. Douglas Richardson, who is a highly experienced and knowledgeable genealogist, has expressed the opposite opinion to this within the discussions you are referring to, i.e. in reconsideration of your new evidence, and this should have some weight. It is the easiest thing in the world, to be mistaken. A key word in the conclusion which you quote is "presumed" (children of John and Ursula Machell). I once presumed that too. However the fact that Mathew Machell's son John also appears in the same Hackney baptism register for 1580, on the date exactly matching that given as the day of his birth in Mathew's 1593 I.P.M., means that there is not, in fact, any presumption that these are all the children of John and Ursula Machell: indeed the opposite is proveably true. Does that appear in your blogspots and forums? If not, then their conclusions are merely provisional.

However I am going to add a footnote to the J.C. article referencing your wikitree link at this point and I hope that will be honour satisfied until somebody brings the argument round the other way again. I will put a copy of this reply on your talkpage where I originally posted my message to you. Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC) BTW I did read your content in the original post on the article talkpage, and putting it in bold the second time didn't change my opinion of it, only made me feel you were shouting at me (which I'm sure wasn't your intention...). We are all trying to work together, and I know this is a highly contentious topic, which is why I am trying not to make it mangle the James Cudworth page. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, Lionheart0317, I am sure you and I have both looked long and hard at this problem. I have a number of evidences which are not in any of the discussion forums at present and probably you have too. I know that Bellasis makes several glaring mistakes in his pedigree references, and like you I have been very frustrated by them. One cannot take any of them at face value without going to the actual documents cited and checking. I am restricted in what I can say here by professional reasons, but I can say from first-hand knowledge that both Bellasis, and also Mrs de Salis in the NEHGR pedigree, were working from older pedigrees which clearly make Cudworth related to this part of the Machell family, though the generations get garbled. Truly, it is not "thin air". I think it very likely that there is an unpublished College of Arms pedigree (which may or may not be actually correct) which then crept into the sources used, perhaps creatively, by both Salis and Bellasis (who didn't use Salis). I agree with your point 2, that cosen might not mean niece - though equally, it might, and at that date often does. I think you are a little hard on Mr Richardson, though like you I don't just accept what he says uncritically. But when he says he has other reasons for thinking as he does, it's worth remembering that he has a great deal more genealogical knowledge than both of us put together, and there I take him at his word. And we don't actually know whether his conclusion is right or wrong, even if we think we do! The Kingston Bowsey (or "Buci") marriage is interesting. Are you aware of the marriage of Robert Machell in the same church in Southwark as the Cudworth marriage, about 3 years later? And there is a Robert in the Hackney baptisms too. It is all too easy to be "sure", but who knows, your "smoking gun" may someday show up. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

teeny point

Hi, Thanks for your last comment and I hope you are content with things. I have just read through all the April-May Google stuff on this and am amazed at the ground it covered, most of which is not new to me but I had not seen it all talked about before. One little point: a contributor talking about Mary as "nutrix" links the word "deligeretur" to the noun (from the Mosheim account), and deduces that she was a 'bandaging nurse', or something like that. That is a misunderstanding of the Latin. The sentence is "Mater Cudworthi nostri ex gente Machellia fuit"... (The mother of our Cudworth was of the Machell family) "...cui honos hic habitus est,"... (who bore this honour) ..."ut Henrico, Regis Jacobi I filio natu primo,"... (that to Henry, the first born son of King James I), "nutrix deligeretur" (she was selected or chosen (as a) nurse). The "deligeretur" is the verb in the passive voice - the verb is 'deligo'. 'Honos' can mean anything from a public office to a distinction, an honour, a glory, an ornament, etc. If only we had Bishop Chandler's notes, which Mosheim used, perhaps he'd tell us the answer we're looking for! Watch this space... and cheers for now, Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

3RR

You are in violation of WP:3RR on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. I have no desire to see you blocked, but you'd better reverse your last few edits pretty quickly.  —SMALLJIM  21:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

DrKay (talk), the charge of Sock puppetry is completely false and untrue. A full investigation will show that I have never used nor own multiple accounts for the purpose of editing Wikipedia pages. This will be confirmed by IP addresses and specific pages I have edited in the last several years. I resent the implication of such activity and will be seeking a redress of grievances from Wikipedia!

Furthermore, @SMALLJIM has falsely accused me of numerous actions in the past that have proven to be completely untrue. This same editor (@SMALLJIM) has also used their position as an administrator to engage in behavior that is in direct violation of Wikipedia's policy (WP:HA) and (WP:PA), to include abusing their position as an administrator. This editor has harassed (WP:HA), hounded (WP:STALK), threatened, and lied about me to other editors. An example of this editor's abusive behavior and false accusations towards me can be found in the talk page of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville.

I assure you that accusing me of Sock puppetry, which is completely untrue, is a serious matter for which it is an unfounded and unwarranted action against me. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

False Accusation of Sock puppetry and harassment by an administrator

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).

Lionheart0317 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This editor has only ever used one account for editing Wikipedia pages. Editor is also being harassed and falsely accused by an administrator (SMALLJIM). --Lionheart0317 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account is not directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

You are caught in an autoblock because your sock puppets are blocked, which just goes to prove that the accusation of sock puppetry is true. DrKay (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pursuing this, DrKay. There's no real secret about the IP ranges that Lionheart0317 edits from: he's occasionally made IP edits throughout his time here. I advised him to ensure that he remains logged-in back in July 2016 (here) less than a month after he registered his account, but he has continued to make occasional logged-out edits – as an examination of the history of his commonly-edited articles shows: 1, 2, and 3 (I'm not giving the IPs to avoid any further accusations of harassment, groundless though they are). One might conclude that the logged-out edits are accidental, since they don't appear to have any malicious intent. Whether, however, he has now taken a new step and purposely registered a sockpuppet account is another matter. On balance, I think that he is probably not MFart (talk · contribs · logs), though the timing is certainly suspicious. An SPI should settle that. Why I should be standing up for him after all he's accused me of, I really don't know. Something to do with fairness, I guess. It would be great if he used this hiatus to ponder his actions.  —SMALLJIM  17:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

DrKay (talk), you have no evidence of me using sock puppets, and your false accusation will be disproved. In which case, you will submit a public apology and acknowledgement of your irrational and foolish judgement. SMALLJIM, how dare you even portray yourself as an innocent and unbiased observer to this situation. You are not only a hypocrite, but a barefaced liar. Acting in your own unscrupulous way, you have consistently violated Wikipedia policy and falsely accused an honest and conscientious editor of Sock puppetry without any evidence. You also now play the victim and try to mitigate your violations of Wikipedia policy by stating, "Something to do with fairness."

SMALLJIM has used multiple accounts during his time at Wikipedia as an editor and administrator. This is evident from his own user account and log of his contributions. SMALLJIM's violations of Wikipedia policies have previously been brought to his attention, but he continues to dismiss them, play the victim, and revert blame back to the accuser. I'm not the only editor and/or user who has now been affected by SMALLJIM's unscrupulous actions. These charges against SMALLJIM are not groundless and have occurred in 2017 and 2018. Please see User_talk:Smalljim#John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux) for one of his numerous false allegations and statements. His hypocritical 3RR and groundless Sock puppetry are his most recent antics to get editors blocked, so he can perpetrate his administrator abuse (WP:INVOLVED) at William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville.

Lionheart0317 does not use multiple accounts and has used only one account and one username during his entire time as an editor at Wikipedia. Any statement, comment, or allegation to the contrary is completely untrue. On the other hand, SMALLJIM uses multiple accounts, whether that be User:Smalljim or User:Smallerjim! SMALLJIM has now affected another editor/user by the name of MFart (talk · contribs · logs), by having him blocked after MFart (talk · contribs · logs) pointed out yet another Wikipedia violation (WP:INVOLVED) that SMALLJIM was accused of and is grounded in fact.

I initially tried to resolve SMALLJIM's issues with civility and third party opinions, however, he is obsessed with seeing other editors blocked who disagree with him and will seek any means necessary to do so. He believes that his bias is acting on the behalf of Wikipedia polices, but his own self-righteous and cavalier attitude about owning Wikipedia pages is more than evident here, where he stated: "A further misfortune for you is that you have come across me who is prepared to go to quite long lengths to see that Wikipedia's principles are upheld so that it remains a valuable resource." He cleverly gives the impression that he is acting on the behalf of Wikipedia, when he is only acting on his own self-serving interest and bias towards other editors to the point of falsely accusing them, harassing them, and blocking them from meaningful and factual contributions. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Bonville,_1st_Baron_Bonville&diff=854787450&oldid=854663155. This incident will be reported and SMALLJIM will have not only his administrator rights revoked, but will be forced to issue a public apology to MFart (talk · contribs · logs). --Lionheart0317 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Well... Despite our documented disagreement about Philippa Bonville, and Lionheart's increasing hostility as it became more and more clear to him that he would not get his own way, I still thought that there might just be chance of a reconciliation, if he could abide by Wikipedia's principles. But faced with that totally irrational onslaught ("You are not only a hypocrite, but a barefaced liar"), we're obviously never going to work together, and I must withdraw any goodwill. He's evidently not capable of maintaining the collaboration and compromise that's required here at Wikipedia and I wouldn't want anyone else to have to be subjected to his ire. I would like to see this editor indef blocked for a history of disruptive editing, and abuse. I can provide diffs if more evidence is required.  —SMALLJIM  22:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Given SmallJim's obvious reluctance to admit his false accusations and lies about another editor, it is obvious that he is not willing to compromise or work with other editors, including MFart (talk · contribs · logs) concerning the obvious facts surrounding the Philippa Bonville issue. I have already stated the facts surrounding the issue to Mr. SmallJim, but he seems to only accept his opinion. As stated previously, I have tried working with this administrator/editor to include abiding by a third party opinion on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's page, but SmallJim will have nothing to do with it, and continues to revert and make edits based on his own personal opinion and then threaten blockage of other editors who disagree with him. I'm stating the facts in this case and will not subject myself to continued false accusations by this editor, and then receive some sort of reconciliation offer. I have already highlighted SmallJim's initial false accusation against me and his continued denial of his actions and continued animosity towards editors' factual and meaningful contributions to not only William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, but to other Wikipedia subjects as well. I have already provided one example of this editor (SmallJim) falsely accusing me and can provide more examples of his personal attacks and ire. However, he claims it is his "British Humour!" Attacking and demeaning the personal integrity of an editor without any evidence is not "humour" in any dialect of the English language. My interactions and dealings with other editors and issues on Wikipedia have been civil, resolved amenably, and without complaint. I reject this editor's mischaracterization of my intent and contributions to Wikipedia. As stated directly to SmallJim, I have provided the reliable sources and citations to the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville page. These sources and citations are from reliable and well-respected authors. They improved the quality of the article and contributed to the overall value and benefit to Wikipedians. They are also meaningful and factual contributions. Any statement to the contrary by Mr. SmallJim is completely false. His animus is the reason for his statement, "I would like to see this editor indef blocked for a history of disruptive editing, and abuse." An unbiased and independent administrator who is not involved or hasn't posted a comment on this talk page is welcome to open up an investigation into sock puppetry for Lionheart0317 and MFart to prove once and for all that they are not the same user/editor or sock puppets of one another. Then a public apology from DrKay (talk) would be necessary along with a warning to Mr. SmallJim. Why Mr. SmallJim has to resort to such tactics is beyond reason, and certainly not becoming of an administrator on Wikipedia. As I personally do not wish to see him blocked from his life's passion as a Wikipedia editor, a warning is more than appropriate. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough. This is not helping Wikipedia. Go file a WP:SPI or report your alleged harassment elsewhere, or give it up. WP:STICK applies here. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Yamla: The user took your advice, although I don't think quite the way you meant it, and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lionheart0317, naming MFart as the puppet. I think the user was trying to prove his innocence of the socking charge. @DrKay: I have no opinion about this user's editing generally, but MFart is not Lionheart0317's sock. Indeed, MFart is operated by a notorious joe-jobber/impersonator: Architect 134 (talk · contribs · count). I've removed the tag from MFart's userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Final Comment on False Accusations: I will say this again, one more time. Per the findings of the investigation done by @Bbb23, the accusations made against me by DrKay and SmallJim have been proven to be completely false!!!!! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Would you care to explain why it's so vital for you that Wikipedia must show that Philippa is the daughter of William Bonville? You've been edit warring for months now, mostly at William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, but today you've reverted me again on Margaret Grey (here), and continued to tweak the wall of text that you posted at Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville#Douglas Richardson Bias and Author’s False Assumptions Concerning Philippa (Bonville) Grenville Almescombe despite (having now, I trust, read and understood WP:V) knowing that your unpublished arguments cannot affect our articles. Why do you care about this so very very much?  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Truth About William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville

@Smalljim: Why are you so adamant about mentioning one author whose theory is considered WP:FRINGE for the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville article on Wikipedia? Do you have some sort of affiliation with this author that you have to pitch and mention his works all over Wikipedia? It is quite clear that there is an ulterior motive at play here, which would explain your persistent efforts to mention Douglas Richardson whenever you have the chance. If you care to do any due diligence, you will find that any source (Granville, Faris, Roskell, Glen, etc.) that I’ve listed on any Bonville family page are considered verifiable and reliable sources above and beyond any Wikipedia standard. You still haven’t responded to the question of what sources you have contributed to any Bonville family article beyond Douglas Richardson’s, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) book? Please share what sources you have contributed, besides your minuscule cut, paste, and delete edits, which are more than obsessive! I can give you plenty of examples if you wish, but I'm sure you are well aware of them. Are you an expert biographer on the Bonville family which gives your opinion the highest standard of scholarship on Wikipedia? What are your credentials that justifies your expertise on this particular family? Factual statements that are verified by other reliable sources and by common knowledge in a field of endeavor are still facts no matter how you want to spin your opinion about verifiability! Please, post on your talk page the reliable and verifiable sources that you have added to the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville page? I trust you have read, understand and realize what WP:FRINGE means! Why do you consider an author who has published extensively about early colonial North American families and lectures on American History automatically an expert in medieval genealogy and medieval history??? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Replying to each of your sentences: I'm not, it isn't. No. No it isn't. I'm not disputing that they are RS. True. None, I think; see WP:C/E etc. I'm sure you can. No. None. Verifiability is policy here. See above. Of course. He is widely accepted as such.

Now please respond to my post above.  —SMALLJIM  10:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Replying to your post: Douglas Richardson compounds the problem by putting his errors into print. So there is your publishing criteria under WP:V. ENOUGH is ENOUGH! I’m not going to respond any longer to your ridiculous and petty antics. My talk page is not your personal whiteboard to pollute all over. WP:STICK applies! --Lionheart0317 (talk)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lionheart0317. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018: blocked

I see you have resumed your harassment campaign against User:Smalljim, which I warned you against in October.[1] This is visible in various inappropriately personalized edit summaries, as well as in this aggressive message. I have blocked you for 72 hours. When you return, please interact with other users in a civil way and don't make Wikipedia unpleasant for them, or you will be blocked for longer. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC).

December 2018: Admin Abuse and Unblock Request

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).

Lionheart0317 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The admin, Bishonen, has made unsubstantiated and false accusations regarding a matter they have no stake in and have no knowledge about. I have already dealt with false accusations of sock puppetry and trolling beforehand, which have been proven completely false. This is the second time I have been falsely accused and an admin has abused their rights, and I have suffered as the victim. I will not tolerate this admin or unnamed others to intimidate me, troll and revert my factual edits from reliable and published sources because of a disagreement, or any other unjustifiable reason. Whether these few admins are working in concert with each other is speculation but certainly a reasonable assumption. Please see this talk page section titled, 'False Accusation of Sock puppetry and harassment by an administrator', that discusses the false accusations previously leveled and the harassment by an admin who claims they are innocent. I should not be subjected to these ridiculous false charges, where I am constantly, through investigations, proving these charges to be completely false. My contributions and/or edits to Wikipedia articles comply with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and are well documented through reliable and published sources. This block should be removed and the actions of a few Wikipedia admins, including Bishonen, will be taken to the Arbitration Committee. This will happen, regardless of future actions by Bishonen, including threats of blockage. Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can take all the actions you've suggested when this block expires in a couple of days. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

William Bonville, Margaret Grey, the Manor of Bideford, and the Fringe View regarding Philippa Bonville (living 1464)

For several months an ongoing disagreement has occurred with an admin by the name of Smalljim. The disagreement surrounds the 15th century woman, Philippa (Bonville) Grenville Almescombe, and whether or not she was the daughter or sister of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville by his first wife, Margaret Grey. I have provided a majority of the sources to the Margaret Grey Wikpedia page and numerous to the Manor of Bideford page. Smalljim asserts that Philippa Bonville’s placement as sister to William Bonville is a coequal view to her placement as daughter of William Bonville. A simple search through the reliable published sources over the past several centuries will affirm that the mainstream view is that Philippa was the daughter of William Bonville, with the fringe view of her being his sister.

Smalljim has taken it upon himself to perpetuate this fringe view to his preferred version of articles for Margaret Grey and the Manor of Bideford, while dismissing and reverting my factual edits to these two Wikipedia pages, and then hypocritically claiming that I’m perpetrating edit warring and disruptive editing. This admin, Smalljim, has relentlessly hounded my edits and engaged in a campaign to ensure that his preferred and unjustifiable version of these two pages is what’s really displayed. The point of this section is to show the history of this editor’s relentless pursuit to make sure that his fringe view (sister to William Bonville) is portrayed as the co-equal and proportionate view to the mainstream view (daughter of William Bonville) on Wikipedia pages mentioning Philippa Bonville. WP:FRINGE clearly states, “in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.”

Interestingly enough, a third party opinion was requested and that opinion reaffirmed the view that Philippa Bonville being the sister to William Bonville was, by all accounts, the fringe view and should be represented as such. This third party opinion even prompted an entire revision of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville’s Wikipedia page. Still, however, the admin (Smalljim), lobbied to include his note of the fringe view of Philippa Bonville as the sister to William Bonville. While the 1620 Visitation of the County of Cornwall – Grenville pedigree does have an entry stating Philippa as being the sister to William Bonville, this entry has been regarded by experts as an error in this pedigree. Furthermore, the earliest and most reliable source mentioning Philippa Bonville's parentage is Sir William Pole's (died 1635), Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, which Pole was compiling by the year 1604 and states that contemporary records at the time recorded Philippa as the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. What follows is the history of the disagreement and obvious abusive actions this particular admin has waged for a minor but yet important detail concerning the family unit of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Philippa Bonville Statement Concerning Whether She was the Daughter or Sister of William, 1st Baron Bonville by an Independent Third-Party Editor

Great work on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, that really puts Lionheart0317 and my petty squabble into perspective. You should be cloned a few thousand times and set to work on rewriting the whole of Wikipedia :) You must expect me to ask, though, why you've not mentioned the disputed parentage of Philippa Bonville, as you agreed was appropriate when you gave us your third opinion here. —SMALLJIM 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim: It indicates I then forgot to post on the talk :) Anyway, that's what the original footnote said in the previous version, so it's up to you and Lionheart to chew the cud and decide how you want to proceed. My original "willingness" to compromise with the footnote in the original version was because, with the paucity of sources available in it, it seemed as if there was indeed a divided body of opinion. But the re-writing of it has—for me—cast new light. Personally, I now lean towards the view that it's stretching credibility slightly to say that there is any kind of debate among historians when I have provided ~70 sources (and remember they are only a (large) percentage of the sources I actually examined), all of which represent a substantial cross-section of late-20C. scholarship and all of whom say only that she was his daughter. And, indeed, the only character cited as saying otherwise seems neither a specialist of the period or, arguably, a historian at all (a genealogist?)—to the extent that they are cited no-where else in the article. Personally, I suspect that it's verging on the WP:FRINGE, probably originating with a 17C. palaeographical error, although that's my personal OR of course. Thanks for the update, and let's hope this is resolved soon! Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Douglas Richardson Bias and Author’s False Assumptions Concerning Philippa (Bonville) Grenville Almescombe (living 3 February 1464)

There seems to be one Wikipedia editor’s bias in using just one author as the supreme source for William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville’s Wikipedia page. This editor (Smalljim) has taken it upon himself to delete reliable sources and authors in preference to his desired source, which is Richardson’s book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011). While Philippa’s historical significance may not rise to the level of warranting her own Wikipedia page, she is still important enough in her relationship to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville to be placed correctly within the Bonville pedigree. The genealogist and author in question is Douglas Richardson, who has written extensively on early colonial American families and specializes in the area of American History. He has also ventured into writing about royal ancestry and has published a series of books on the subject, in addition to frequently posting his opinions to genealogical websites and blog spaces.

It should help Wikipedians to know the true facts concerning Richardson’s Bonville pedigree and the false assumptions that Richardson has stated which form his inaccurate conclusions regarding his assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville. While Richardson’s royal ancestry book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011), is useful for the many primary and secondary sources it lists, Richardson will still complete pedigrees based on his own assumptions and conclusions of the evidence surrounding the family he’s writing about. Douglas Richardson makes three false assumptions concerning the evidence, family relationships, and assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville. These assumptions need to be discussed in depth to show why this author’s Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) is not the best source for the Bonville lineage and Philippa’s placement in it.

First: Richardson assumes that Sir William Pole’s (1561-1635) Grenville pedigree was compiled after Bernard Grenville gave his Grenville pedigree to the visitation heralds in 1620. Bernard Grenville’s pedigree of the Grenville family is found in the 1620 Visitation of the County of Cornwall.

Douglas Richardson has stated, "The earliest and presumably the best source as to Philippe's parentage is the Visitation of Cornwall which places her as Lord Bonville's sister. While I certainly respect Pole, he is not infallible. He makes Philippe the daughter of Lord Bonville. I should note that Pole was writing in a later period than the published visitation. In this case, I would give the visitation greater weight than Pole."

This is Richardson’s primary basis for considering William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville to be Philippa's brother (not her father). It is more than abundantly clear that Richardson is in error regarding which pedigree, Pole's or Grenville's, is older. The evidence disproving Richardson’s assumption is the 1604 letter from William Pole, published on pp. iv-vi of the introduction to his Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, which shows that Pole was already hard at work on this project and completed it at least sixteen years before Bernard Grenville compiled his Grenville pedigree and gave it to the visitation heralds in 1620. Moreover, Pole had already finished his works well before the time that he had retired to Colcombe Castle in 1618, which dates his retirement as being several years prior to the Visitation of the County of Cornwall in 1620. While in retirement, Pole would subsequently comment on the 1620 Grenville pedigree constructed by Bernard Grenville, citing the many errors found in it.

Second: Philippa Bonville had previous unknown marriages and children prior to her marriage to William Grenville, Esq. (died c. 1450), which explains why she had such a late marriage to William Grenville in her early-mid 30s.

Douglas Richardson has stated, “I assume that Philippe had an unknown first marriage before her known marriage to William Grenville.”

And this is the primary basis for Richardson’s assumption to explain why an aristocratic woman of Philippa’s social status would marry William Grenville, as a second husband, at such a late age in her early-mid 30s during the time frame of 1427 to 1431.

Unfortunately, there is zero evidence to suggest that Philippa was born in 1396 or earlier as Sir John Bonville died on 21 October 1396 and his widow, Elizabeth FitzRoger, married Richard Stucley by an agreement dated 6 December 1396. Elizabeth FitzRoger then gave birth to their first born child, Roger Stucley, in 1397. This would mean that Philippa Bonville could not have been born any later than November 1396. In this case, Philippa would have been at a minimum 31 years of age upon her first marriage to William Grenville (died c. 1450). There has been zero evidence uncovered throughout the past five centuries suggesting that Philippa had husbands and/or children prior to her marriage to William Grenville (died c. 1450). With that said, NEVER during the 15th century in England did an aristocratic/upper class woman marry for the first time at an age in her 30s. Similar to Richardson, someone could speculate that Philippa had an unknown first husband with unknown children in her teenage years and 20s. This would help explain such a late marriage to William Grenville in her early-mid 30s, but there is no evidence to support this and such a speculation would seem to contradict Philippa's decision to show the Bonville coat of arms impaling the Grenville coat of arms in the medieval stained glass window at St. Petroc's Church. The heraldic evidence of the Bonville coat of arms impaling the Grenville coat of arms instead of the arms of another speculative first husband disproves the earlier marriage theory for Philippa Bonville.

If Philippa did have husbands and children prior to William Grenville, where is the evidence to support it? Most women of Philippa’s social class were married by the time they were 15 or 16 years of age and bore their children by the time they were 24 years of age. Many competent and respected medieval genealogical historians have stated as such. It appears Philippa had only five children and wouldn’t have bore children in her mid to late-40s during the early 15th century. Philippa’s youngest daughter, Ellen (Grenville) Yeo, could have been born as late as 1440, as Ellen gave birth to her first child, Robert Yeo, in 1455. Philippa's two youngest sons (John Grenville, Gent. and William Grenville), could have also been born in the early 1440s as well. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that Philippa had previous marriages to William Grenville, bore children prior to her marriage to William Grenville, or that William Grenville was not her first husband.

Third: Hugh Stucley (died c. 1457) could only have been the half-brother of Philippa Bonville because Hugh’s name appears in a document associated with Philippa’s first husband; William Grenville, Esq (died c. 1450).

Douglas Richardson has stated, “I noted that her half-brother, Hugh Stucley, Esq., had served as a feoffee for her lst husband, William Grenville, Esq., in 1447. . . . Many things are possible. But the most likely explanation is that Hugh Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville's half-brother.”

The exact relationship between William Grenville, Esq. (died c. 1450) and Hugh Stucley is not known. There isn’t a record that states their relationship. A feoffee’s relationship to one deceased family member doesn’t automatically mean it’s the same relationship to a different family member they serve as feoffee to, regardless if it’s within the same family surname. Nor is it the same relationship when that same family member is mentioned in a different record of another family member who is of the same family surname.

Basing someone’s parentage and weighting it the most in an analysis solely on a feoffee status or the mentioning of the same family member in a record of someone else with the same family surname, where the relationship is not known, does not prove or confirm anything. Douglas Richardson wants to make Philippa the sister of Lord Bonville to support his assumptions, so it is more than convenient to say that Hugh Stucley was Philippa’s half-brother. Sure, Hugh Stucley was of some sort of kinship to Philippa as Lord Bonville was Hugh’s half-brother, but that is all that can be concluded from Philippa’s relationship to any Stucley. Just as “sources” are not all equal, “feoffee relationships” are not all equal.

It is crystal clear that the role of Hugh Stucley provides no such support for his placement as the half-brother of Philippa Bonville. If you look at these types of feoffee transactions during this time period; you see the names of cousins, in-laws, allies, lawyers, etc., and even uncles. There is no reason to declare or certify that the appearance of Hugh in the group of feoffees favors him being a half-brother and not a half-uncle of Philippa. It is just Douglas Richardson’s confirmation bias to conclude this was the case.

Furthermore, the famed 19th century British Antiquarian, W. H. Hamilton Rogers, who specialized in the West Country of England, stated on pages 43-44 in his The Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): "John Bonville had two sons, William elder and heir, Thomas, and one daughter Isabel. . . . Isabel, only daughter of John Bonville, son and heir of William Bonville, married Richard Champernowne of Modbury, son of Sir Richard Champernowne, who died 26 Feb., 1418-19, and Katherine daughter of Sir Giles Daubeney, and who were both buried at Dodbrooke, near Kingsbridge."

Finally, if Hugh Stucley were the half-brother of Philippa Bonville, why weren’t the Stucley arms installed as a lone/straight coat of arms in the stained glass window at St. Petroc’s Church during the early 1450s? That’s because the coat of arms (found in the 1564 Visitation of the County of Devon p. 23) of Philippa’s factually true half-brother, John Bonville (died 1499) (illegitimate son of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville by his mistress Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Kirkby and his wife Isabel Tunstall), was installed in the early 1450s within the exact same stained glass window where Philippa's paternal coat of arms are impaling the Grenville coat of arms at St. Petroc’s Church in Petrockstowe, Devon, England. It is an undisputed fact that Hugh Stucley's coat of arms was never associated with the coat of arms of Philippa Bonville, as the heraldic evidence proves that the coat of arms of Philippa's true half-brother, John Bonville, Esq. (died 1499), was associated with Philippa's coat of arms in the exact same stained glass window at St. Petroc's Church.

As Wikipedians can read for themselves, I have laid out the three major, false assumptions that Douglas Richardson uses to “declare” and “certify” his conclusion that Philippa was the sister of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. As it can clearly be seen, Richardson has never presented any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise; to even slightly discount, discredit, or disprove William Pole’s statement, “Phelip, daughter of William Lord Bonvill” found in his Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon (p. 387). The rebuttal evidence presented in response to Douglas Richardson's suppositions confirms that his assumptions are indeed false, which undeniably contributes to the inaccurate conclusion of his parentage assignment for Philippa Bonville.

William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville’s Wikipedia page as it exists today, 19 August 2018, states that Philippa (Bonville) Grenville Almescombe was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville by his first wife, Margaret Grey: (“Bonville's son and heir by Margaret, William, married Lord Harington's only daughter Elizabeth around 1443,[12] and two of Bonville's daughters—Margaret and Philippa—married William Courtenay and William Grenville respectively, who were both scions of cadet branches of the Courtenay family.”). --Lionheart0317 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Outrageous and Rediculous Comments by the Admin, Smalljim!!!

Read WP:V. —SMALLJIM 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Read one of the reliable and verifiable sources for this article: Roskell, J. S.; Clark, L.; Rawcliffe, C. R. (1993b). "Bonville, Sir William II (c.1392-1461), of Shute, Devon". The History of Parliament. Archived from the original on 11 August 2018. Retrieved 11 August 2018. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've read it several times. Have you read WP:V yet? —SMALLJIM 22:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Maybe you should keep reading it, as it is the most referenced (with 45 citations alone), most reliable, and most verifiable source for this article! You should also read WP:PUS, as Richardson's books are self-published. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's very good on William, certainly, but it only mentions Philippa briefly, since she's only a peripheral detail. Of all the writers, only two have written anything specifically about Philippa, and significantly both of them – Fitch-Northen and Richardson – determined that she is unlikely to be Bonville's daughter. Everyone else probably just copied what their sources say, since it's not important to the main topic. Now contrary to what you're trying hard to accuse me of, I'm not claiming that Richardson is correct or the best or only usable source. My contention is simply that there is sufficient doubt about the matter for us to briefly mention it. —SMALLJIM 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and only the 2nd edition of Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) has been self-published (see here). The important Magna Charta Securities certainly isn't. Incidentally, have you read WP:V yet? ;-) —SMALLJIM 22:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Funny, how you now want to bring Charles Fitch-Northen into the conversation. Fitch-Northen’s work on the Bonville/Grenville lineage was considered low-quality and so error-filled that not even Douglas Richardson cites Fitch-Northen as a secondary source in any of his books. Richardson publicly commented on the subpar-quality of this particular Fitch-Northen work himself. Neither Fitch-Northen nor Richardson ever published any works with a biographical sketch on Philippa Bonville or her relationship to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. Fitch-Northen briefly mentions her in his short essay on the Grenville pedigree. Douglas Richardson does self-publish. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 series was written by Frederick Lewis Weis with assistance from Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr. and William R. Beall. That is a fact, no matter how you might want to spin the truth about it on Wikipedia. Richardson played a minor role in that series of works, as he somehow lobbied to change some of the lineages in the 5th edition, which included lines 16D, 22, 59A, 90A and 101A, largely based on his own assumptions of the evidence. Contrary to what you’re being accused of? When you delete reliable and verifiable sources and then insert Richardson’s works, it’s not rocket science to figure out why and your intentions about doing it! Anyone would conclude that you believe Richardson is a supreme source and correct! So, if you are going to state anything, please state the facts, and stop guessing and misleading others with what you’re putting on Wikipedia. Have you read WP:FRINGE yet? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: No response by Smalljim!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Final Note!!!

As it can clearly be seen in the previously cited history of this dispute, the admin (Smalljim), has deliberately and intentionally made the fringe view of Philippa Bonville (sister to William Bonville) as having a co-equal and proportionate prominence in Wikipedia articles as the mainstream view of Philippa Bonville (daughter of William Bonville)! Smalljim’s actions are now so egregious, that other admins have leveled false accusations against me, where investigations eventually prove them to be completely false! —Lionheart0317 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor (Smalljim or Smallerjim) Hounding and Trolling

As noted above in this talk page, users and editors can clearly see the hounding and trolling of this one particular editor (SMALLJIM) mentioned in the preceding section. When there are facts added to articles from reliable, verifiable, and published sources that do not support this editor's fringe theory, SMALLJIM reverts to these tactics. Please see Wikipedia:HOUNDING. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a little odd to refer to yourself as "this editor", but it's good of you to admit your wrongdoings :)  —SMALLJIM  23:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Please keep your snide comments, false accusations, unwanted emoticons ":)", and mischaracterizations to yourself and your own talk page. It's quite bizarre why you would engage in such inappropriate behavior just to support your ill-conceived theories about a topic, while jeopardizing any hint of credibility you have left on your fringe theory. Why don't you cease and desist with these actions and stop posting to my talk page, while you’re hardly justified in doing so. Accept responsibility for your blatant misconduct and admit your shortcomings on this subject (on your own talk page), then move on. You should quit this ridiculous campaign of yours when it’s obvious that all the facts are against you. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Smalljim: You have yet again made bogus accusations in order to further your fringe view, while simultaneously violating Wikipedia policy at Richard Stucley. Your ridiculous and unsupported charges resulting in your deletion of a note containing factual and referenced information is completely unacceptable. This is just another example of your direct violations of WP:FRINGE, WP:HOUNDING, and WP:OWNERSHIP. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Continually whinging at me won't make any difference. The evidence of the past year or so amply indicates that you will not listen to advice, no matter who offers it, and are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. You have been warned several times about your uncivil behaviour which was characterised by another admin as harassing me when they last blocked you - see here. If after reviewing the circumstances you still believe that I'm behaving unreasonably then read our guidance (WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE seems appropriate) and take the appropriate action - in other words ask for assistance.  —SMALLJIM  16:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Smalljim: If you call stating facts, "whinging" at you, then you surely are misrepresenting the entire situation and should seriously reconsider your position on Wikipedia. Don't think it went unnoticed how you conveniently and recently archived your talk page to hide very relevant information about your conduct. My recommendation would be to focus your energies on something else. Continuously leveling false accusations and violating Wikipedia policies does not make you immune to sanction because you hold administrator rights. However, it could make a difference in the future. Claiming to be a victim of harassment, when you're the one committing the harassing, hounding, and belittlement of the person you're accusing, is quite absurd. There is ample evidence of your animus to support that conduct and how dare you speak of incivility when you have been uncivil on many occasions. It also will not turn your fringe theories and opinions into historical fact. The evidence of the matter speaks for itself. The evidence that consists of your own edits and personal musings are neither Wikipedia policy nor factual content. Just because there is another uninformed admin who may know you and makes an unwarranted and unfounded block against me (when they know nothing about the topic), means absolutely nothing and surely doesn't advance your cause. This is especially true when unbiased and fair arbiters investigate these blocks and then prove the accusations to be completely false. The reliable, verifiable, and published sources made to Wikipedia articles by myself and a few others (which you consistently revert, delete, and dismiss), strongly supports the claim of your violation of WIKIPEDIA:OWNERSHIP. And that's just one to name a few. Of course in your mind you're behaving reasonably. You feel that you're justified in every single edit you make on Wikipedia. Every single one of your posts to talk pages speaks volumes to that. When you say "we" and "our", you believe that you're speaking for all of Wikipedia. I'll be the first to tell you, but you're not the final authority or the most renowned expert on every Wikipedia topic or article that you so happen to make an edit to, and/or falsely assume ownership of. That delusion must and should come to an end. What is appropriate and helpful in this situation is for you to admit your wrongdoings and then post a public apology on your own talk page addressed to me! Perhaps, those actions might help you see the errors in your ways. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Tl; dr but it just looks like more whinging.  —SMALLJIM  18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Why don't you plead the fifth! That might be your only recourse. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@WikipediaUniverse: It is self-evident by simply looking at the contributions to Wikipedia by the admin who calls himself Smalljim, that he is neither an expert nor credible editor about many topics on Wikipedia. This especially includes historical and genealogical subjects. He deliberately trolls and hounds users who have proven him wrong and then responds to them by claiming that they're whinging. All users should be made aware of this particular person who is nothing more than a joke with a reckless agenda on Wikipedia. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Edmund Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)