User talk:Rowing007

Welcome!

Hi Rowing007! I noticed your contributions to Surfside condominium collapse and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do that

Hey, I just wanted to say I don't appreciate being called out in edit summaries. I was demanding sources after your initial unsourced edit, but ended up not reverting it, but rather fixing that. And when you then removed one of the sources, you called the edit hyped up and improperly. At the time of me editing, both sources mentioned brothers on my end; it might not have been updated on your end yet. I then explained that in the revert, and even apologized if I had come across as unfriendly in said first edit. Not sure how that has anything to do with my "ego"? –LordPickleII (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you're embarking on this little harassment campaign against me demonstrates that you're too emotionally invested in this. Strive to do better as an editor, plain and simple. This is a live event where a batch of new details had just been released. No one is going to be 100% on-the-ball. It is to be expected that sources will change or quickly follow an unsourced edit. So much for being a self-proclaimed WikiSloth I suppose, eh? Take it down a notch and stop caring so much about something so meaningless. Rowing007 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rowing007: You may be right, I didn't need to have to do this follow-up here. Meh. Anyway, I still don't think you have the moral high ground here. Nothing I did was intended to "harass" you. And I do strive to do better as an editor, every day. Maybe you were also emotionally invested, and interpreted my edit summaries as somehow calling you out? I didn't intend that. Again: If I had wanted to pick a fight about sourcing, I'd have reverted your edit, not acknowledge you were right in having written that, and then adding the sources myself even before you'd inevitably gotten to it. Anyway, I'll excuse myself now, and suggest that we both read WP:CIVIL again. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretentious drivel. Textbook overthinking, not to mention classic projection. I'll let you simmer on that, buddy. Leave me alone. :) Rowing007 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Thanking" me for my previous message is another level of pettiness, and it's perpetuating your harassment against me. Enough already. Rowing007 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, just thought you were due some appreciation. I wrote the first Example as presented in the Cournot competition article and I appreciate the edits you made to tidy things up. Thank you! Sadke4 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem! There's more to do in other sections of course, but I figured incremental progress is better than none. Rowing007 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that many recent edits you have made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! See this statistical summary for proportions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Given your recent involvement in the RFC situation, I find this message inappropriate and request that you stop contacting me. WP:ES is not policy. I provide edit summaries for substantial changes, or for small changes where the reasoning ought to be mentioned. Virtually all of my other edits are typo fixes, amending references, or fixing formatting issues. Thanks. Rowing007 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ottawa Rowing Club. The discussion is about the topic Ottawa Rowing Club. Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	David Blair (rower) is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi Rowing007! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of COVID-19 lab leak theory several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Be careful with revert-warring. This is a contentious area, and the consensus is most likely against you on increasing the prominence of pro-WP:FRINGE views.. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink, I'm not sure if that is an automated message, but I have only once chosen to revert the edit by Bon courage. That user has actually gone ahead and reverted my edit twice (once to my original edit and again to my reversion). I am not promoting fringe views; I am trying to achieve neutrality. I have not reverted anything further, and I have already been engaging in a discussion on the talk page, which, admittedly, is not getting very far, as the other user does not seem inclined to address the points I am raising. Rowing007 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would actually encourage you to read WP:1AM, as given the viewpoint you're taking (that it is "neutral" to describe the scientific consensus as just one of several opinions) you are unlikely to find consensus on that talk page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop it with the incivility, bludgeoning, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Statements like this, this, this, this, and many more of your recent interactions are verging on unacceptable, and taken as a whole show a disruptive pattern of editing. At Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting the use of reliable sources rather than your views on what the police chief said has been explained to you multiple times, and the standard use of contentious topic notifications has also been explained to you. Please, knock it off. Don't bludgeon discussions repeating the same argument and making borderline personal attacks. Don't assume bad faith when another editor gives you a CTOP awareness notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: what absolutely ridiculous accusations. Kindly leave me alone. I am merely defending the simple logic of accepting that the police chief's statement may be the truth. I fully understand the policy which is against the truth, and I am not campaigning to change the article. I am saying that more information will be required before it can be changed in the article. Rowing007 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make this a little more clear for you. If the disruption on the talk page continues I will block you from the article and talk page so others won't have to waste their time and deal with your attacks. If you continue to attack other users on their talk pages for giving notifications of CTOP I will block you for personal attacks and harassment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: what an absurd accusatory overreaction and overreach. The bias here is clear in your choice of words and it's been duly noted. Moving on. Rowing007 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Editors had to endure this same discourteous battleground attitude at Talk:Ottawa Rowing Club. --Magnolia677 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Oh for goodness sake, you stay out of this. Go away and stop fallaciously bringing up irrelevant past situations. The only discourtesy here is your unsolicited entry into this topic; it is inflammatory, unwarranted, and unwelcome. Rowing007 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I just wanted to suggest that using edit summaries is a great way to let other editors know what changes you made to an article. Masterhatch (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: You're not the first to suggest this, and you may not be the last. I frequently use edit summaries and I am completely aware of their benefits. Since this is obviously in relation to the various Saskatchewan settlements/place names, where I fixed the italicization of the script names per MOS:BADITALICS, I will say that when I am implementing a minor change (such as the one that prompted your decision to communicate with me here) on multiple articles, I sometimes opt to simply not use an edit summary, because this saves me time, and the edits are completely innocuous. Per WP:FIES, Summaries are less important for minor changes. Please be mindful not to hound me. Thanks. Rowing007 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories

Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Elected versus started term

These are not the same thing. Patterk Netser may have been elected 2 September but his term didn't start until he was sworn in. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: There is massive inconsistency in the convention applied across Wikipedia. For example, after a very brief search, the infoboxes for Paul Okalik, Linda Duncan, Justin Trudeau, Brent Rathgeber, and Tim Uppal (and probably dozens/hundreds of politicians of various levels throughout the world) all state that their time in office started the same day the election took place. On the other hand, during the same search, the only person I was able to find that lists their in-office start date as the date of the first session of the legislative body (in this case, federal parliament) is Scott Andrews (politician). Moreover, Patterk Netser was elected in a by-election. This means his time in office took effect immediately, as the legislature was already formed; there was no dissolution and no need to wait for one to be formed, as would be the case with a regular election. Also note that the numerous examples I gave above (which state the time in office as starting on the same day as the election) were all for general elections, which reinforces this nuance that your point does not hold for by-elections. Finally, while the by-election was on September 2, 2003, there was a recount on September 20, 2003, so, if anything, it would make more sense to put September 20, 2003. Instead of bluntly stating that they ("elected" and "started term") are not the same thing, please point to a manual of style or guideline that outlines the format to be observed in such instances, and please take the necessary steps to ensure this rule is followed appropriately, and on a case-by-case basis (i.e., not blindly, as you seem to have done here), throughout Wikipedia – not just on territory-related pages, which you seem to have on your watchlist as you seem to be alerted by edits to such articles. As well, please stop contacting me or otherwise initiating overblown procedures over such ridiculously minor things that can be very easily and innocuously changed/edited/modified/corrected. At best, your behaviour represents a failure to assume good faith, and at worst, it is hounding. Rowing007 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

First Nations Placenames

So that you know, there was a discussion and RFC on your edits on Canadian articles to include First Nations placenames. The RFC has been settled in favour of your inclusions and I will be putting them back. Thanks for your work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#RFC_on_usage_of_native_name_parameter_for_First_Nations_placenames Poketama (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Medals

Thanks for all the help. In infoboxes the medals are sorted by G/S/B and then from old to new if you check around here on wiki. Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kante4: Please do not blindly undo the edits, as the order of the medals isn't the only thing I changed. I fixed typos, added missing entries, and fixed other things on the pages, so blindly undoing them is reinstating those errors. Rowing007 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Kante4 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Rowing boat classes

I notice that you changed 1999 World Rowing Championships by changing the minus signs in boat classes to n-dashes. The boat classes are listed at Rowing (sport)#Boat classes and the minus is in contrast to plus, to indicate without cox or with cox. It isn't clear why you made the change. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: First of all, I'm fully aware of what the minus sign represents in rowing; there's no need to lecture on coxed vs. coxless boats. Secondly, this - is not a true minus sign; it is a hyphen-minus. This − is a minus sign. I had mistakenly put en dashes – instead of minus signs −; this has now been fixed. Rowing007 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

17 Again (2009 film)

Hi. I recently saw you in the edits of this page and wanted to point out something that confused me. The infobox and the section labeled Box office cite two different numbers for the film's total gross: 139.5 and 136.3 million. I wasn't sure if I should make amendments or not since both numbers have references so I figured I would mention it to a more experienced editor. 166.194.204.24 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems one of the sources may have been under-counting sales. Article has been amended to show the two amounts. Rowing007 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your 28 currently proposed deletions require additional steps

Hi. There are a couple more steps involved in proposing these articles for deletion.

• Add the {{Old prod}} tag to each article's talk page.

• Notify each article's creator and significant contributors of the PROD. I left a notice about all these deletions at:
  • Talk:India at the 2022 Asian Games#Proposed deletion of 28 Indian medalists' articles

You may find it more efficient to just direct article contributors to Talk:India at the 2022 Asian Games notice for more information as opposed to listing out all the PROD'd articles on each editor's talk page. The {{Proposed deletion notify}} template is also available as a alternative.

You didn't use edit summaries for most of your deletion-tagging. For PROD-tagging, that's critical for people with those article on their watchlists. The deletion policy explicitly requires:

• "Provide an edit summary that clearly indicates the biography has been proposed for deletion. Do not mark the edit as minor."

I removed PROD tags from 2 other articles:

• Neeraj (Rower): this article had previously been proposed for deletion. PROD can only be used once.
• Bajrang Lal Takhar: received both the Arjun Award and the Padma Shri

If you still wish to delete these two, you can use the AfD process.

Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: Thanks for the note. I'll wait for the current PRODs to run their course and then I'll start an AfD process regarding any of the remaining articles I still feel should be deleted. Rowing007 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

17 Again (2009 film) 2

Good morning, I'm writing to express concern on Rowing007 continue reedits on the wiki pages for the film 17 Again. He has repeatedly remove the information stating that it was Matthew Perry's final film before his death (which was a couple of days ago). He has done this for not only me, but others throughout the day of his death.

Although the situation is now calm with the relevant information added onto this page (quoting from the page "This was Perry's final film before his death in October 2023"), I don't know if Rowing007 will remove this relevant info. I was send a email from Wiki saying i was engaging in a "edit war", even though the blame is on Rowing007. Bluenosezulu (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see he's still doing it and it's being unproductive. I urge him to stop doing this or I'll report him.

@Bluenosezulu: you are encouraged to weigh in at the article's talk page where a consensus is to be reached regarding the inclusion of the proposed content. Thanks. Rowing007 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Rowing007, I just closed a report at WP:ANI brought against you by Bluenosezulu. Just giving you a belated heads up as Blue failed to notify you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Rowing007, you need to stop removing any irrelevant information about Matthew's final film role and you also have to remove the warning label about the talk page otherwise the article can sometimes lack relevant details throughout. If you don't stop it, there will be prosecutions involved. And Bluenosezulu, don't worry. It will be added back soon. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

182.255.41.207, see the administrator's admonition to you below on this page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What was the problem right now? Rowing007 may have almost ruined the whole page just so people won't be allowed to add unless there will be witnesses. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruption at Ashish (rower)

I see that you have been warned for edit warring and tendentious editing previously on this page, but apparently it bears repeating. You are edit warring to blank content from Ashish (rower) with the false edit summary "removed irrelevant, unsourced, and unencyclopedic information". The material is not irrelevant, is not unsourced, and is not unencyclopedic. If you have issues with any specific material as presented, take it to the talk page. Continuing to blank the content is disruptive.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

He has done this for eight pages of Asian Games Rowing meallists and deleted 60 per cent to 80 per cent of the sourced content. Some of the articles were rated as Start class by experienced editors but look bare because of this "blanking". thanks, david Davidindia (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Davidindia: please stop harassing me about this. The articles fail WP:GNG, plain and simple, as laid out in the AfD. If the batch AfD fails, I will resubmit individual AfDs. Rowing007 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are using this language. Please do go ahead. After all the disruption you did, I feel I have the right to mention these facts. thanks. Also I suggest, you to register your user page... thanks and regards, David Davidindia (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Davidindia: regardless of what you feel you "have the right to mention", I consider this repeated contact from you to be harassment. My edits have not been disruptive whatsoever; you created numerous messy and poorly written articles on non-notable people. You "suggest me to register my user page"? You know what, I don't even care to attempt to decipher what that means at this point. If you're referring to my red linked user page, that's entirely my prerogative and completely out of scope. Leave me alone; I'm operating through the AfD. Rowing007 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So be it. Regards, David Davidindia (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Davidindia: Nothing I said has been an explanation; I am asking you to cease this repeated harassment. Once again: leave me alone. Rowing007 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Rowing007 (talk) Kindly stop using the word harassment. You have been harassing me for long... Regards, David Davidindia (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Davidindia: stop posting these replies on my talk page; we are long past the point of productive discussion. This is pure harassment. Rowing007 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to stop this. Right now.

Why do you always have to keep talking about any "irrelevant" details on Matthew Perry and 17 Again. Look, I know that 17 Again was his final film before his death and you completely added a warning saying no one is allowed to add unless there will be witnesses. So I kindly ask you to stop doing that kind of irrelevancy, remove the warning labels on 17 Again and add back "This was Matt's final film role before his death in Oct 2023" otherwise you will make Matt upset. So what will it be? 182.255.41.207 (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@182.255.41.207: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. What content is and is not written in an article is decided by consensus and discussion, not by editors making threats and demanding things be done their way. You are welcome to participate in the discussion at Talk:17 Again (film)#Matthew Perry's final film appearance if you would like to argue why, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not your or anyone else's personal opinions or feelings, the article should mention that it is Perry's final film role. If you continue making threats, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Thanks for contributing to the article Thomas Cubitt. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Are you being purposely obtuse? Don't template me. The Indian subcontinent during Cubitt's liftetime was Company rule in India, de facto. In correcting the link, there is absolutely no insinuation that "he went to join the British East India Company" as you claim I did, so no source is needed, because there is no content that has been changed; he merely existed there during that time period. Correcting the link is simply pointing to the correct historical period, which is something done on countless articles. For example, George Washington being born in Virginia Colony, British America, not Virginia, USA, or Vladimir Lenin was born in Simbirsk, Simbirsk Governorate, Russian Empire, not Ulyanovsk, Ulyanovsk Oblast, Russia. If you think it is somehow contentious to put the de facto entity rather than the de jure entity (Mughal Empire), then Indian subcontinent should be linked, but in either case, India should definitely not be linked, because it is not the correct historical entity. What an absolutely ridiculous thing to have reverted and templated me over. Rowing007 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The link you inserted was to Company rule in India. The first line of that article says "Company rule in India (sometimes Company Raj, from Hindi: rāj, lit. 'rule') was the rule of the British East India Company". So what are you saying? Dormskirk (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: This is simply a question of historical entities. Refer to the examples I provided above. Was George Washington born in the USA? No, he was born in British America. The USA did not exist yet. Did Cubitt go to the Republic of India as the original link would indicate? No, he went to the company rule in India. Suppose he had gone to Anatolia instead of the Indian subcontinent; he would have been in the Ottoman Empire, not Turkey. If you went to Moscow during the 1950s, you would have been in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation. Does that mean you were in any way involved in the regime? No! It simply means you were in that location during that time period. Get it? Rowing007 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. I get what you are saying now. I can't say that I agree because, to my mind, India has existed for many centuries. But if you want to link it in the way you have, I don't feel that strongly about it. Thanks for the explanation. Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)