User talk:Screamliner
Welcome new user
[edit]Hello, User:Screamliner, I see you've opened an account and begun to make edits to the encyclopaedia. You are most welcome and thank you for the many constructive edits you have made to the Terence McKenna article.
I'm Lumos3, one of the numerous editors here. I voluntarily work as a welcomer to newcomers. I'm posting below a standard welcome box with lots of useful links. I hope you get pleasure from editing and making Wikipedia an even better resource for the community.
I myself have come to the conclusion that editing and watching a topic is a great way to learn about it in depth and stay on top of current developments in the field.
Wikipedia encourages new members to jump in and make corrections and contributions to articles. I found the Be bold guideline particularly encouraging when I was getting started. I also found the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet a useful quick reference for editing the source text but our new VisualEditor makes editing much easier (This needs to be turned on in your user preferences).
If you have any questions about the project don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page here :-User_talk:Lumos3.
Happy editing,
Lumos3 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) , Wikipedia Welcoming Committee.
Welcome Screamliner!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, Lumos3 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Screamliner, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Screamliner! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Discretionary sanctions notification
[edit]
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for topics relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.This is merely a notification, not a reprimand. vzaak 23:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for repairing my source edit errors in the article Terrence McKenna. I do my best not to make such error and when possible I continue in my source work by consulting the sources and providing pages etc. If you have the books in referenced please provide the full citations. There remain significant problems with the sources, many are primary, some are unpublished or self published and some seem not to meet RS. As consensus editing on the article continues I hope multiple editors can improve the article through good faith consensus building. Again thanks and sorry for my errors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Just as a follow up. The references have been formatted and tagged. I found one high quality reference and another editor has found a second. The one I found has been added to the article with a link to the chapter, the other is on the talk page. I invite you to work on the article with those references and what others you find. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi MrBill3, Not a problem and thanks for the reference you have found. I will have a look and see if I can help improve the article more when I get a bit of spare time. I have already improved some of the references you flagged up. Thanks again Screamliner (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings Screamliner, I have added an additional comment on the talk page. Thank you for your contributions to the article. I think you are making substantial improvements. I just wanted to drop you a note re the WP process and let you know although there may be some contention, WP editing is a consensus process engaged in with good faith. I hope myself and other editors proceed with courtesy and respect contributing to your enjoyment of and encouraging your editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have access to ProQuest and may be able to email you material (For your own personal research, not to be distributed, to be destroyed upon completion of your research). I think this qualifies as fair use. I will post material I find in the Sources section on the talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi thank you for your kind words and yes that would be fantastic MrBill3, is there any way I can send you my e-mail address privately? If not I could post a temporary e-mail address here just for this purpose Screamliner (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If you email me from User:MrBill3 (left side of page, tools menu, email this user link) I will get an email from the email address you used to register on WP. I can email you back at that email address or you can put the email address you want me to use in the body of the email message. Let me know which sources you are interested in. Your certainly welcome for the kudos, I think you are making great improvements to the article.
A few notes:
I think the material from the Schultes 1993 review needs to be paraphrased. A little overquoted there.
In general ASINs are discouraged. If you think adding the one for the CD version of Alien Dreamtime should be added back as verification of publication of the CD version. The idea behind discouraging ASINs is that it is a link to a single commercial website. Jimbo wrote in an email that he was against using ASINs. Relevant guideline can be found at WP:LINKSTOAVOID item 4. This also applies to GoogleBooks links, they should be used only if the text cited is available (free). In my opinion GoogleBooks links should be applied to and point to the page number(s).
There are still a ton of cites to McKenna's books, speaches and other works as references. I think most of the material can be found in secondary reliable sources to the citations should be changed to those. Policy WP:SECONDARY, essay WP:USINGPRIMARY. I am pretty sure with a little work all the sections but Thought can can be cleaned up. This will allow moving the tags at the top of the article to that section.
Speaking of the Thought section, boy that needs a ton of work. I think Jenkins (2009) covers much of the "Novelty Theory" and "Timewave Zero" material. It seems some of the books you have found cover "Archaic Revival" and touch upon "Stoned Ape". The section needs to be cut way down. I think the Watkins Objection has to go, where is it discussed? Sheliak and Watkins material is self published original research not encyclopedia material.
Well enough already. In the future most of this type of discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Again thanks for your contributions. You have provided some excellent references and done some good editing. The article is much stronger now and the support for the content is getting good. McKenna was an important figure and he has been written about fairly extensively by a variety of authors. As an RN I find that Jean Watson discussed him in Postmodern Nursing and Beyond particularly intriguing. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the help and advice MrBill3. I couldn't find the link but you can e-mail me at screamwiki@runbox.com I am going to have a go at re-working the Stoned Ape section over the next few days so if you've anything related to that or food of the gods in general that would be excellent, although I've got quite a few good sources to go on. I have done quite a bit more editing on the article today. In my view the only sections now which are still in need a lot of work are the 'Stoned Ape' section and 'Novelty Theory and Timewave Zero' section, 'early life' section needs a bit of work too. I've got quite a lot of information regarding novelty theory in the John Major Jenkins book and also in the Mavericks of the Mind book but it is a big task so I'll have to see about doing that section, maybe some other editors will chip in as well. Anyway thanks again Screamliner (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to be a help. You must be quite the McKenna scholar by now. Great work on the article. I am going to remove all three tags and have stated so on the talk page. I have also notified vzaak and TRPoD, they will likely have some input (some clarification and context of mainstream scientific consensus and the status of McKenna's ideas as fringe, which are appropriate, and those two editors are good at providing such as well as insistent upon it). I will email you some of the material when I get a chance, RL and various computers and all that. I am going to pull the Watkins Objection to the talk page. When I get a chance I will do a detailed discussion of the sources I have tagged on the talk page and an attempt at consensus on what should stay or go...
- Great work the article again. I hope you are enjoying editing and will continue to do so. There may be some pushback on this article and in the future on other articles you and I may be in positions of contention, as ever AGF and best wishes. - - (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MrBill3 sorry only just seen this message I did just ask you about one of your tagged sources in the talk page. Anyway thanks again yes it's been an enjoyable experience. I agree some well sourced criticism would be beneficial - I have added a bit myself today. I'm going to have a little break from editing, but I will get the page numbers for true hallucinations done in time and I may even have a go at the novelty theory section in the future. All the best and look forward to the e-mails thanks Screamliner (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello - it's Matthew Watkins here, just wanted to correct your section on what TM called the "Watkins Objection" (the article is locked, so I can't change it myself). I did my PhD at the University of Kent at Canterbury, NOT Cambridge (I think McKenna himself got that wrong somewhere in print). I started looking at the Timewave in '95 or '96, not '94, and that was *after* I completed my PhD. The description of my "objection" isn't entirely accurate, but five years after 2012 I don't think anyone's that interested! I can clarify if you like [mwatkins@maths.ex.ac.uk]
129.12.212.56 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC) MW
- Hi Matthew User:129.12.212.56 thanks for getting in touch. WP is only bult on information from published reliable sources, so even if you sent me the correct info by e-mail it would not be able to be included in the article, so i have just removed the potentially problematic information from the article. Thanks Screamliner (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Encouraging you to edit
[edit]Good to see you editing. I think you are a good editor and I encourage you to edit other articles. You have developed some real skills in WP editing and you write well. I hope you find other subjects interesting and contribute to them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much MrBill3 and thanks for your support. Screamliner (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
September 11 discretionary sanctions notice
[edit] | Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. |
This is just so you are aware of September 11 discretionary sanctions that are allowed following the above arbcom case. This isn't a sanction or warning, just a notice so you can familiarize yourself with differences between these articles and others in WP and don't find yourself being sanctioned without understanding the special rules set by Arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 4
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4everevolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
January 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Terence McKenna may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{Rquote|right|<small>It's clearly a crisis of two things: of consciousness and conditioning. These
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Screamliner. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Screamliner. 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)
Discretionary sanctions regarding living or recently deceased people
[edit]Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC).
- You have received the above alert because of your controversial edits to and around the page David Icke. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC).
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC).- (And the same with this one, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC).)
Editwarring
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. zzz (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- zzz I was the one using the talk page and attempting to reach consensus you did not even engaging on the talk page even when asked to, so your threat/warning seems misplaced. I reverted one edit which appeared to be blatant vandalism, and the other which is potentially in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RSUW, where a talk page discussion started by me, in an attept to reach consensus on the very issue is currently ongoing! And as per WP:BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." So it was perfectly justifiable for me to revert the contentious edit on the topic directly been discussed at Talk:David_Icke#Antisemitism Screamliner (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Screamliner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was the one using the talk page and attempting to reach consensus other editor did not even engaging on the talk page even when asked to. I reverted one edit which appeared to be pettty vandalism, and the other which is potentially in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RSUW, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:EXCEPTIONAL & WP:QS Where a talk page discussion, in an attept to reach consensus on the very issue is currently ongoing! And as per WP:BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." So it was perfectly justifiable for me to revert the contentious edits on the topics directly been discussed at Talk:David_Icke#Antisemitism & Talk:David_Icke#Holocaust_denier I am the only editor bothering to quote wiki policy to show the justification of my actions Screamliner (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly edit warred and exceeded 3RR, which is not justifiable. Being correct, if you are, is not a defense. Looking at the dispute, I don't feel that the BLP exemption applies(and would be a matter for WP:BLPN). Please review WP:EW. Unless you are willing to concede that you erred in edit warring, I don't feel you should be unblocked before the block expires. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 27 May 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.
- Note: Screamliner, an uninvolved admin will be along to assess your unblock request. But the 3RR rule is a bright line, and you had been warned. The history isn't very easy to read, so I'll supply the four reverts inside 24 hours that you made in my opinion: [1], [2], [3], [4] (the last is a partial revert of Izewhiz's edit here.) Bishonen | talk 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Screamliner. 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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | 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 |
April 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, David Icke, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit] Hello, Screamliner. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page David Icke, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Philip Cross How is this at all suitable, or relevant to post on my page? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's relevant because most of your contributions are to Icke's article. I note that you haven't addressed the question, would you please do so now? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Doug Weller I haven't counted all my wikipedia edits per page but I think if you did you would find I have made more edits to the Terence Mckenna article overall, which was the first page I made any serious contributions to. There wasn't a question asked, it was a statment as far as I can tell, so I didn't presume an answer was required. If you are asking if I have conflict of interests in regards to David Icke, the answer is no, and I really hope anyone seriously looking at the content of my edits in an unbiased fashion would see that. Thanks Screamliner (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller No problem. Screamliner (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Doug Weller I haven't counted all my wikipedia edits per page but I think if you did you would find I have made more edits to the Terence Mckenna article overall, which was the first page I made any serious contributions to. There wasn't a question asked, it was a statment as far as I can tell, so I didn't presume an answer was required. If you are asking if I have conflict of interests in regards to David Icke, the answer is no, and I really hope anyone seriously looking at the content of my edits in an unbiased fashion would see that. Thanks Screamliner (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Covid19 sanctions
[edit]{{gs/editnotice}} Doug Weller talk 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Using Template:Tl on the use of this editnotice as soon it will cause an error if left as a template call. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)