User talk:Srednaus Lenoroc

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Srednaus Lenoroc, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Srednaus Lenoroc! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Srednaus Lenoroc. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

New account

Hi is there any reason you've created a new account rather than continue using user:Srednuas Lenoroc? Nthep (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you answer this question, Srednaus Lenoroc, as it will help to clear up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc, and then you can go back to focusing on editing rather than having to answer questions there. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the unpleasantness would be avoided if you answered my original question. If you previously edited as Srednuas Lenoroc then say so and it would be very helpful if you would say why, if that is the case. If you have used two accounts there is nothing wrong in that but explaining when asked avoid people thinking the worst of you and mixing you up with an impersonator. Nthep (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Srednaus Lenoroc. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Sam Sailor 20:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Blank edit requests

Hi there, were you trying to achieve something specific here with the three blank edit requests you submitted? I'm happy to help if there's something you need help with. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange that they did not go through. That has never happened before but I did notice that things were not going smoothly and maybe my computer was disconnecting during the process. It probably was for the misspelling of January. But as each was unique I will not readily remember but next year when I go through my process they will come up. If they have not been seen during editing by now they will not be so readily crucial.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operating a BOT

Based on your recent editing history, I suspect that you are using some type of automated tool to either perform or assist your editing. Please read WP:Bot policy and understand that operating a non-approved bot is not allowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am using nothing special except the search process.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to reiterate that whatever it is that you have accused me of usuing I am afraid I really am incapable of knowing. I refer to my "computer" as a machine because that is what it is to me. If it does not function under what little I do know about it then I am useless as to developing a more advance use of technology. So this "bot" I cannot help you solve your concern.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friends

Meters and Meters too -- You want something to occur that is fundamentally impossible to do--erase from the record. Even when you delete it on the talk page the text that was deleted remains so whatever reason that compels you to do what you do is unfortunately useless. I have absolutely no control over that simple state of life. You may be annoyed by something but that is your person that has to somehow come to terms with say someone who is annoyed when on the street he hears someone whistle to themselves. It really is not a constitutional offense and the way that it was approached makes friendly chit chat about resolving it some other way all the less possible when you inconvenience others.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my page and don't ping me again. WP:DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Meters (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I know you Meters and Meters too ?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep pinging users to be obnoxious, I will interrupt your editing privileges. Stop trolling other users. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is pinging?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PING. When you link to another user's user page, it typically generates a notification for that user. Since it's clear that the user doesn't need or want to be notified, your unnecessary linking to their user pages is unnecessarily generating unnecessary notifications or "pings". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my fault but the actions of WP system.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep doing it for no reason, then it is your fault that they would be needlessly pinged. Please note that competence is required at Wikipedia. If you demonstrate a regular inability to understand basic ideas, like that X action causes Y outcome and Y outcome is unpleasant, irritating or unwelcome, you're going to very quickly wind up excluded from editing. I note that the numerous times other editors have contacted you here and at Srednuas Lenoroc you have danced around various issues using circuitous and confusing responses, which makes it very difficult to communicate with you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, exclusided. What a prize!Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a conspiracy?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srednaus Lenoroc (or whoever you are). I've had a cursory look at your contributions, and they seem fine to me. I see two possible solutions here.

simply ask for a change of username to something quite different to the problematic username
admit you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09:54, 17 February 2017‎ (talk • contribs) Shirt58 (UTC)

That has already been explained and discounted as infiltration by the sock puppet. What else is to be done with a system that is self promoting.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 17 February 2017‎

Lrednuas Senoroc or whatever, point out that your contributions under the new username have been OK, and ask for an unblock of your first account

What do you think about this?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:shrugs shoulders, walks away

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I've refactored this for clarity; Srednaus's "has already been explained" was in immediate response to an unfinished message from Shirt58, which Shirt58 came back and retroactively added to half an hour later. It was not to the suggestion they admit to being Lrednuas Senoroc.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perfect example of the problem with WP. Now I imagine I am being disruptive and should be sanctioned for the faults of WP?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the meanings of sentences

Regarding this edit, "closing up a window" is very different from "closing a window". Windows being "closed up to avoid paying tax" is a reference to the window tax, where houseowners would brick up windows to lower the amount of tax due on their property; it does not refer to simply closing an open window. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in a British article? Then It should be explained.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that I think you might be striving a bit beyond your fluency level with your "grammar" edits changing "closed up" to "forwarded". Please stop making mass changes like that; they are not improvements. Eric ^talk 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are when they are military.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Forwarded"

If you don't like "closed up" we can discuss it but forward isn't a verb; what if an illiterate English Lit grad or an American sees it? Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now. Be polite. Disparaging remarks are not part of the WP mentality! Troops move forward, fallback or flank and just because a word or term may not be "logical" to some it is certainly accept in a profession. I cannot help that and WP is not a place for innovation as has been point out by some authorities here.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is a piece of military terminology I'm unfamiliar with, your sentence fragments such as "the French consolidated Cléry and forwarded to the German third position" are ungrammatical. "Forward" is not an intransitive verb; the French can "move forward to the German third position" or they can "be forwarded to" it, but they cannot "forward to" it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever spoken with military people? They would seem the source.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing. If you would like to appeal against the block, you can place {{unblock|your reason}} on this page, and your unblock request will be reviewed. Your unblock request should address the reasons why you were blocked, and in particular answer the question - which you have persistently evaded - as to whether you have edited Wikipedia using the name Srednuas Lenoroc (talk · contribs) in addition to this account. WJBscribe (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked a question then never given any time to reply. Did the person who blocked bother to read the time stamps? That sound like another case of foolishness and shark tank mentslity. Again I do not expect for this situation to end happily because WP has a problem with self-critique being perceived as an affront to its authority.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were first asked six days ago. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time I explained what was the situation and discounted. Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then before I could answer the last question I was blocked. That is Fair?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now WP has a situation where someone jumped the gun and has embarrassed WPSrednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is WP going to admit their mistake?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" is not going to admit anything - it's a website, not a person. We are all individual volunteer editors, who you have failed to engage with collaboratively as is required for a project such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you can still answer the question here on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There's no review until YOU start providing straight answers to straight questions which start with:

Did you previously use the account Srednuas Lenoroc between May 2015 and June 2016?
If so, why did you stop using that account and create this new account?

Nthep (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your replies iuntil I answrr. I am putting in answers and losing them because new print comes up.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless what you think WP has made a mistake. You don't ask a question then cut them before they have had time to answer. Not only that you do not discount a person's explanation without due diligence then create additional problems for those involved. We would bot be at this situation if whoever decided my answer was not truthful if they had done their work. Please WP would you do you work before you accuse people.

I had a computer that was programmed to go directly to my account without having to type everything. That computer broke. It had been some time since I had manually log in so was unble to recover. I put in a name that took. End of story. It does ot take an Einstein to understand that. And again, I do not expect for WP to revert this because you people in authority feel threatened. And to revert would clearly show that there was a mistake done.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that original account was Srednuas Lenoroc? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pull out of the thin plain air a name such as that without some reference to the old?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Srednaus Lenoroc; can I just advise- please do not attempt to fillibuster the block appeal or this thread. This is not SPI or ANI. Using this page just to reiterate the same disingenuous non-answers and delaying tactics will probably just result in you losing your talk-page access for continuing the same disruption here. Incidentally- you don't need to write up anything: only one word is required. No yes or no; no talk page. I imagine that's how the near future will pan out. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you corrected the misspelling.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that Srednaus Lenoroc's ability to edit this page is revoked unless they use their next comment to provide a clear answer to the question of whether their previous account was Srednuas Lenoroc? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, you are not requesting it, that is what you want. You are pissed off and not in the British sense. Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srednaus Lenoroc (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: FYI. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a question or a statement?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

700 words later and I confess I am none the wiser. Is there actually an answer to the question buried somewhere amongst all that self-justification and obfuscation? And if so, is there any explanation as to why the answer wasn't given 6 days ago instead of wasting everybody's time? WJBscribe (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: Well; this might approach being an explanation- although in the edit summary it's called a 'story.' That, of course, might sum it up. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, the answer is not consistent with this. There are still inconsistencies. Again, I think that he is just trolling and wasting our times. 16:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now after getting your answer I have to crawl and beg? Again, I do not expect there to be a happy ending to this situation because that would mean all this deliberation has made people look very foolish. And may I suggest that in future use your words judiciously. I never abandoned any account. As I said, I just could not log in or recover.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We wouldn't be here if you had given that answer when I first asked you on 11 February. You're right it doesn't take an Einstein to understand the explanation but you have waited the best part of a week and got blocked before supplying it.

So now that is cleared up and putting aside any connection between you and the SPI into Lrednuas Senoroc - which I don't think you are involved in - are you prepared to address the issues that have been raised about your edits?

There are two listed above and other examples on the other talk page. It appears to me that whenever you are challenged about an edit, you never consider that you might be wrong and instead seek to blame others for their lack of explanation or blame the English language for having idiosyncrasies that aren't apparent to you. The first is not acceptable behaviour, if you come across something you don't understand then you either ask for clarification or you move on, you do not make a guess at what you think it means and change the wording to suit your interpretation, for example the 'closing up a window', 'closing a window' case discussed above. The second is something you just have to accept - English does not always conform to rules and even when it does there are likely to exceptions. I have an impression that English is not your native language so I would suggest to you that when one or more native speakers of English tell you that you are mistaken about something, you accept that and not argue ad infinitum, ad nauseum about it and stop trying to shoehorn the language into your set of grammar rules. By all means ask how the grammatical construct arises but accept the point being made.

Wikipedia operates on consensus and civility and while the majority of your edits are beneficial, fixing spellings etc, this is not going to count in your favour if you are not prepared to communicate positively when there are areas of concern raised. Again it might be a language issue but your responses, when they are made, tend to be defensive, if not aggressive and very long winded. Brevity is often a virtue so long explanations are not necessary if a short one may suffice.

I suggest you look back at all the comments on your talk pages and consider how you will behave if you are unblocked. Then put that into an unblock request using the {{unblock}} template for someone (and it won't be me) to consider. Nthep (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No long answer is necessary: block or unblock. This space is the process. What has been done should suffic otherwise you make it appear that the questions have not been answered and I cannot take WP's word for what they say.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna--Am I wrong in thinking that explanations are stories because that would be the understanding of your disparaging commnent?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Story" implies a fictional as opposed to a factual account, but I am willing to accept that you were unaware of that connotation when you chose the word. WJBscribe (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, apologies are due for assuming you meant it literally; but with so much of what you say so opaque, it was not an impossibility! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced block

I believe that you have now confirmed: (a) that you used to edit as Srednuas Lenoroc (talk · contribs); and (b) lost the password so created this account. On that basis, I will now amend the block from indefinite to 48 hours. Your attitude to the questions regarding your former account was not acceptable. Instead of providing a answer and explanation, you have wriggled, dodged the question, and made numerous accusations against those trying to resolve the problem for the last week. That was disruptive and I believe a block remains appropriate. In addition, please note that there remain outstanding issues with your editing, which Nthep (talk · contribs) has explained above. You should consider them carefully when you resume editing after the block expires. Failure to adjust your behaviour may result in further blocks. WJBscribe (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe:, i am not sure that it is a right decision. Take a look at here. He said that all those resemblance of his own account and other two accounts are just a "coincidence" and asserted that he is a seperate editor. It is inconsistent. @RickinBaltimore:, could you please comment on? 46.221.178.57 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you think that this is a straight answer? . Seems not. Again, we just "interpreted" it, like his other vague responses, answers. 46.221.178.57 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see Srednaus Lenoroc get another chance if he/she is able to demonstrate that they understand the reason why they have been blocked and that giving straight answers to reasonable questions is a necessary part of collaborative editing. Sadly, the responses below do not fill me with confidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is WP going to do about future cases of mistaken presumptions because if there is not one then there certainly is reason enough for it to exist.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just as I said. This situation has not ended in a happy situation because you still have me on block although the problem was never mine. Would you WP people so bent on this type of quest do due diligence.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When one is accused it is not unlikely they will be defensive and oif course that is thought of as being uncoorperative at WP. A very esay accusation to levee.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, Don't try and hide behind the face and put your post before comments that preceeded yours. It makes you look insincere. By the way, how does one canceaal their account?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Indenting. Putting comments before others is perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour. Provided all comments are time stamped, there should be no confusion over what time they were posted. Note that comment 2 being posted after another comment 1 doesn't mean comment 1 was posted, there could be edit conflicts and other things which mean this wasn't the case. Also, you've already had your block limited to 48 hours. I suggest you shut up before you talk yourself into a longer block. As several people have pointed out, there was no mistaken presumption and the problem was entirely of your own doing since you took 6 days to answer a simple but important question and in fact had made claims in the past which now revealed to be misleading based your recent admission that the account did belong to you. In other words, we don't care so much if you're defensive, what we do care is you failed to answer the question and what answer you did give was misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less at this point what you have to say about the situation that WP made for itself.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does one canceal their account?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion (and I already known my status within WP): When posts arrive in this talk page there is no indication to what authority someone questions someone else. If this is a collective of individuals and no one seems to have authority, or at least recognized by their communication, then there is no saying how someone will react to a question when if they have no authority then why in hell would anyone answer it. I do not have to answer all the mail in my in box for my office to function. Everyone does not have to answer all their email in order for the world to function. Why should I answer someone that has as far as I can tell have no authority to do so. Private information should remain private and I do what I can about mine.

How does one deavtivate their account?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to leave the project, you just stop editing. You can put up a {{retire}} template if you wish to announce to other editors that you are retiring from Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you reflected on the time and effort we have wasted editing and re-editing the term "closed up". If you meant well, it backfired; wouldn't you rather discuss this rather than digging a deeper hole? I'd rather you stayed and not just because I can read anagrams....;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this doesn't matter if you are retiring but no one has any more real authority then anyone else here, except I guess for WMF representatives and WP:Arbcom members in specific instances, and you're not likely to encounter the. However the community as a whole does have authority. If a butt load of people are asking you the simple and obvious question of whether you are the same editor as another editor with a very similar name, then yes you should answer that question. Refusing to answer that question because the people have "no authority" is likely to get you blocked since it's an entirely resonable question. Especially when someone has impersonated you before so there's a good reason why people need to check. If you've chosen to call yourself a very similar name as your previous account, it's ludicrious to expect your connection to the old account should be private. Actually in many cases even with different names, revealing a connection to a different account is expected. There's nothing wrong with making a new account because you lost the password to the old account, but there's also no reason why it has to be private. Only a limited set of circumstances is there any reason why you need the connection between the accounts private. BTW, if you mean we made the situation by not just blocking you quickly and then removing talk page access then I guess yes you're right we made the situation. Of course if you were acting resonably then none of this would have happened. And there are a lot good reasons why we try to be fair to other editors, as we were with you, even if we waste a lot of time doing so. In other words, we could have dealt with you a lot harsher and maybe it was well deserved, but we intentionally generally don't and it's a bit silly to complain we created the situation by being kind to you rather than just dealing harshly. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the bastards get you down

Please forgive my hasty and officious colleagues and come back to continue your contributions. E Eng 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second EEng. The other editors were mistaken, and we'd really like to have you back. 🌻🌹🌼 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Srednaus Lenoroc. 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)[reply]