User talk:Aladdin Sane/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

St Valentine's Day

There is an RfC at Valentine's Day in which you may wish to participate. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Keurig

I was editing the same section of Keurig and quickly looking for a link to that Judicial Panel page at exactly the same time you were! (but couldn't find it) Naturally edit-conflicted here , as you already know apparently. (And you're welcome too! )
220 of ^Borg 05:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the article looks pretty good. I added a re-direct page for the full name to the Panel, in case that comes up again. I wish I knew how to fix that time ambiguity you pointed out, but I really do not.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe remove the sentence entirely, or try and find out when it was added, giving the 'when'. We have things similar to these, but I haven't heard the term K-Cup in Australia at all. I think we use a more generic term like capsule coffee. I only went to have a look on WP when I came across a news story that the inventor didn't use them himself! Uses Drip brew. I just add boiling water to the brown stuff in a jar marked 'Coffee' and consisting of "pure soluble coffee. 220 of ^Borg 07:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be cute to add that anecdote about the inventor, but I'm not sure how to with a straight face; I read the same story. I think I have the consolidation case paragraph fixed. I tracked down the current case, and added some exact cites for it.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome work in "Criticism of Linux"

Even if we don't end up merging "criticism of linux" and "linux" together, I like that you have done a lot recently to improve "criticism of linux" you don't need my approval by any means but I wanted to express my gratitude I think you're awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I've some other suggestions I may bring up on the Talk page.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This diff rips out the previous article structure, and uses a logical format for the sections, from lowest level hardware, to the widest, third party criticisms. I did discuss it on the article's Talk page, because such edits, while adding or removing no content, frequently look to other editors, when seeing the diff, like a bunch of content was added or removed.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Edits qua editors. You know Bryce, you are still learning. So am I. Some basics still escape you. While indentation of threaded conversations is one, signing is another. (I've made obvious mistakes very recently, and rapidly corrected them on second review of my save.) I, as an editor, have indefinite patience for this, and mere reminders I provide, I doubt I can ever escalate. But other editors these things infuriate. While I've not seen WP:RANDY lodged against you specifically, yet, be very very wary of this. I think the point I'm trying to drive home: Some editors, including me, ask the question: If you can't write a properly edited comment outside article space, how can you be trusted to edit inside article space? My answer is in my Userbox on my User page opposite: "This user reserves the right to completely screw up his or her edits." I forgive others as I forgive myself. But other editors seem not so forgiving, eh, User:Rjensen?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry yet--- wait until he drives Aladdin Insane. Rjensen (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I won't deny this is within the scope of possibilities. I've admitted to an unusually thin skin for one on-line so long. That is my failing. But I do give the younger room to breathe, and room to fall. And I do not dismiss them so easily. I'd appreciate a more thoughtful refutation from one with your credentials. I'm disappointed.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for perspective

User:andyjsmith is suggesting a 6 month ban for me. I was just wondering what you thought. any feedback you could provide in ANI would be useful. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see how this ping template works: @Bryce Carmony: I really don't know what to make of ANI. I'm sure I've already been adequately WP:TROUTed there. For future reference here, this discussion thread refers to ANI § User:Bryce Carmony and civility which will later be archived at ANI. (You might note Bryce, that I never remove other editors comments from my Talk page, the more critical, the more adamant I am about keeping them intact here.)

I'm not seeing a serious problem with your behavior, civility, etc. within the scope of the two Criticism articles I watch, Linux and Microsoft. A minor one, yes. But we all get frustrated. I don't think that sanctions are warranted. Recently, I became frustrated with an article, and that bled on to an editor on the Talk page. I apologized and struck my remarks. I probably would have done the same (a strike, refactor, or other modification) with certain remarks I left on your Talk page, had they not been removed. C'est la vie.

My recent joke to you on your Talk page, was actually directed at me: I should write a well researched essay called WP:Criticism of ANI.

I'd prefer to discuss content (since that is what I am left with) and your arguments thereto; why I oppose your proposed merges of "Criticism of..." articles, yet defend your right to make the argument. I really have only one source to cite for my defense of your arguments that I disagree with. "Evelyn Beatrice Hall".

But I can say this with regard to content: As I first argued in this diff, your Merge proposals belong to the Guidelines and Policies discussions, and changes to those that are sometimes made. "WP:Content forking", at § 2.3, Articles whose subject is a POV clearly states that, "As noted above, 'Criticism of' type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors."

Since these forks have been done within the scope of these articles and the guidelines above as referenced to allowable types of forks including POV forks, this is not the time for Merge proposals of these articles. However, to lend your arguments their appropriate weight, I do believe that you should edit and condense them all, and take them to the Talk page at the "Content forking" guideline article, and propose that § 2.3 be either modified or removed. That would give your multiple Merge proposals more of the weight you desire for them, and may cause the guideline to be changed in some form. (Though you should also note that I still reserve the right to oppose these merges in general.) There's no need to argue NPOV; no editor argues against it, except with respect to guidelines such as this, which guide these practical matters, and have a basis in a set, written form for us to follow.

Do understand that prior to posting at an appropriate, and in this case consolidated, policy or guideline Talk discussion page, you should have your refutations ready (this is the correct forensic strategy; do not repeat your arguments verbatim for rebuttal). If you think about it, you've already gathered them, but they are strewn out among many Talk pages at this point. You probably need to do some brainstorming in a Sandbox, with editors more sympathetic to your view than I.

Let me give you an example of the above that I recently experienced as an editor. While making another edit, I noticed that Reuters was un-italicized in a cite, so I italicized it. I was wrong. Another editor undid that portion of my edit (note that the editor has edited the article for 10 years, 7 of those devoted to changing it from an article to an FA). (If you really want a quixotic challenge, pick an article, and make a GA. You may actually defeat that windmill.) We were talking about multiple issues, and here's my response to that one: "Thanks. I'll take the formatting discussion elsewhere."

Here's the deal, Bryce, the article, both an WP:FA and a WP:BLP, is not to be edited lightly. Indeed, if I feel Reuters belongs in italics as a news organization that promulgates stories cited in double quotes, which I do, then the proper fora to discuss the matter is simultaneously at WP:MOS, and at the discussion for the template in which I was editing. Going all crazy on editors of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article would not have come close to making my point about this style issue, or changing anything within the scope of these cites. The discussion, I leave for another day, and elsewhere, but not at that article's Talk page. The point is, that was the wrong place to make the change in the first place, and the other editor made me realize it. If I really want it changed, I have to to argue my case at another, different level, not at the article level.

Some call this, "Choosing your battles wisely." I call them, "Tired cliché repeaters." The real arguments are here. In what you and I may experience day-to-day as editors. The mistake is letting an ANI notice get past the first remark. You won't win; any victory there is Pyrrhic at best. I refer you to my non-existent essay above. Read the ANI archives and be enlightened. I've been on-line since before you were born. This is not a point of pride, it is a mere historical oversight. More forgiving gods would have better enlightened us both to these pitfalls.

There are appropriate venues for your arguments against "Criticism of" articles. The articles' Talk pages are not the right ones. If your argument encompasses 2 or more articles, look to a higher source, such as guideline or policy Talk pages, to make your arguments. They may still get shot down, but at least you are being heard in the correct forum.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Acts of contrition

I would endorse your recent edits at ANI. But since I disagree with the ANI in the first place, I'd be hypocritical to do so. You're acting correctly within the scope of the community that brought the action against you.

Were I in exactly the same place I would do exactly the same thing.

I write this to point out: I'd've never let it get that far in the first place. What you wrote at "I officially redact all merger proposals" at 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) and at "I apologize for being incivil" at 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) should actually have come 3 minutes after the ANI was lodged. See above. You weren't going to win. You lose as gracefully as possible. This is the best outcome that can be hoped at ANI. Consider this practice for the real battles. When it really matters. Remember this, because ANI has long since forgotten the principle: In the end, content matters, not the behavior that got us there.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, for the record, the ANI was archived to Archive878. It apparently was never formally closed. Apparently, the three proposals were not acted on. After all that, the Universe simply returned to how it was before.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In conclusion...

I think you overstated the importance of the AN/I and you. You were not trouted there--I think you were mentioned once? I feel that it was archived after it achieved its goal; Bryce appears to know how he was previously being uncivil. My one regret is what it turned into; I feel Andy and Luke were rehashing old arguments instead of standing back and letting uninvolved parties see. (About what you told Andy: I personally feel that no, Wikipedia is not WP:THERAPY, but it helps me personally to help the encyclopedia and I need that some days.) Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Origamite: thanks for that. I shall busy myself failing to disagree with your analysis.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Keurig Etymology

Hi there - I've been puzzling over your recent edit regarding the etymology of "Keurig", trying to parse the meaning of the phrase "received the translation to mean". It's a strange locution. It occurred to me that you might be an editor whose first language wasn't English. But I can see that you have full command of the language -- so I thought I'd ask what you had in mind. Are you saying that they construed it to mean "excellence"?? Regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cgingold: You needn't worry that you are on the right track. You get a LOL from me on reading your message. Yes, construed may be better here. The problem we're confronted with is not that. The problem is with the source. The source says the inventor got it from a Danish-English translation dictionary. I've googled lots, there is no keurig in Danish. There is a nifty word keurig in Dutch with lots'o'cool meanings. You can find this evidence at the Talk page for the article (as Softlavender points out, neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR on my part is allowed in the article; I keep it on the Talk page therefore). That is how my wording came out that way. You're welcome to edit me, if you find it appropriate.

(BTW, I've written the editors of The Boston Globe about this Danish/Dutch issue, and they've failed to write back, or issue a correction. Since you brought it up, in the interest of full disclosure, here is what I wrote in email to them:

Subject: Request correction/annotation. Article, "The Buzz Machine"

Date: Sunday, March 8, 2015 1:38 AM

From: "[redacted]" <[redacted]>

To: [email protected]

Editor,

In your publicly available article, "The Buzz Machine" by Daniel McGinn published August 7, 2011 available at::

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/08/07/the_inside_story_of_keurigs_rise_to_a_billion_dollar_coffee_empire/

and

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/needham/articles/2011/08/07/the_inside_story_of_keurigs_rise_to_a_billion_dollar_coffee_empire/

Mr. McGinn states that 'keurig' is "...a word meaning excellence that Sylvan pulled from a Danish-English dictionary."

I've tried to verify this for my etymological curiosity, and to incorporate into the online encyclopedia. Everything I come up with says the word is Dutch, not Danish. I've lots of Dutch search results, and none Danish. I fear that either Mr. McGinn mis-quoted Mr. Sylvan, or, more likely, Mr. Sylvan mis-remembered his marketing quest from well over ten years ago at the time the article was written.

Still, could your online edition possibly feature a note stating that there is no Danish word "keurig" but a very useful and versatile one in Dutch? If you can verify my assertion? See, for example,

http://www.interglot.com/dictionary/nl/en/translate/keurig

Yours,

A humble Wikipedia editor.

I'm sure the editors of The Boston Globe are too busy with other matters to respond to an etymological issue that dates to over four years ago (but is still a matter of record on their web site).)

Yes, we fans of etymology want the evidence in the article (I already pointed out to SL when she asserted that companies and products do not have etymologies, that this is absolutely untrue, the WP article "Etymologies of companies", as obvious evidence of the obverse of her argument). But we must be careful of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as @Softlavender: flapped her wings about here, she, her arguments, are to be considered with some weight. My circuitous wording I thought left the issue alone. But you may (so to speak), as your editorial judgment allows, go on with it as you see fit.

On these sorts of matters, should they become contentious, I tend to weigh in more on Talk pages, than actual edits to articles; they can be highly polarizing, and I desire the truth of the matter to end up in the finished product, though never deleted from it.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Aye aye aye... Thanks for your expeditious, detailed and, well, comprehensive reply. I rather suspected that there was a reason for your odd choice of words. Not much likelihood that you'll get a reply from the Globe, though. I'm not quite sure how to revise the text, so I'm going to let your info, um, percolate... if you know what I mean. ;) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I'm long past past LOL, and off the sofa and on the floor. Thanks for that...   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Would you care to have a look at the latest issues being discussed and give some input? BP OMowe (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@BP OMowe: Thanks for the offer. No. I can't comment specifically at this time. I find the subject makes me too emotional when I think about it. I'm not, at this time, an objective editor there.

However, you asked there how to quote multiple pages from a source, in multiple cites. I use the {{Rp}} template for this (works for me). I recently did this in this diff (Rp p. 1, 3, and 42, but sources were from a different editor), for an example you can see, if it helps you any.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged, that should do the trick. BP OMowe (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe

I don't think MOS:PIPE really says this. But if it does, it should be harmonized with the long-standing practice on the Main Page, at least since 2009 at Did You Know, which is documented at WP:DYKSG (search for C7) and WP:DYKHN (search for H13). Art LaPella (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Crazy Boy, [a-lad-insane]

I'm a bit of a Linux head as well. (hobbyist, hang out in GUIs mostly)

You may enjoy a *nix oriented Facebook group I've facilitated: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DigitalAlchemy/.
A fair number of 'old hands', like yourself, hang out. It's an open group, so feel free to make a membership request and/or friend me at my page: https://www.facebook.com/kevjonesin — and I'll add you.

BTW, Bested by Pelicans, languid Cali ska, I'm loving it. Thanks for turning me on to The Uptones.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As I enjoyed your taste in music I decided to check into your taste in film as well. Educating Rita was delightful. :  } Thanks again, --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: Thanks for your comments. I mean that, not just bein' polite. I've known few who've seen Educating Rita but it is my favorite all-time movie since I saw it back then. (Please note that the DVD was produced as Region 2 only when I went to buy it, and I now own a "region-free" DVD player, just so I can watch this movie again; it has everything.)

As to my "Linux advocacy", please see these Talk page archive sections for your historical edification: User talk:Aladdin Sane/Archive 1#Fortress Linux and User talk:Aladdin Sane/Archive 1#U A TRAITOR BRO. I won't forsake objectivity here for my personal proclivities.

The article on which we met, "Depraved-heart murder", seems to have its disagreements, for now, resolved by a type of WP:POLE, but the first section of the main body still sucks, because it is a quote, without an editor leading in to the quote with a few words to tell us what it is about. (Man, don't even talk to me about the principle of least surprise here.)   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

ref desk

I've answered your questions. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very grateful (re: Translation requests: Mexican Spanish to English; IPA needed).

*If the movie was widely released and known in English by its English name, then the English title is fine. For example, most of Almodóvar's movies have English titles here (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). (This is not a question I can answer with any authority, since it is cinematographic, not linguistic.)

The IPA is [raʼises de ʼsaŋɡɾe] with a broad Latin-American accent. In Spain the c would be [θ], not [s]

Spanish does not use English title capitalization; only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized, so Raíces de sangre would be correct.

μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I made a few minor changes of wording and expanded the lead of Roots of Blood a bit. I'd normally recommend not going into such detail about the release date, but at this point I wouldn't worry, since shoehorning it in somewhere else won't really improve anything. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PS, I hope you are nominating this for WP:DYK? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. In fact, when I saw your change to this article, I got a chill down my back. Good work.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: I've reviewed the DYK procedure, perhaps you should submit it. I can only weigh in on what secondary sources have said, I have not seen the movie myself. I do not have a 'hook' for DYK. I can not imagine the possibilities here. I am your humblest,   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen the movie either, I prefer lush romances to the gritty class struggle. I have also known a lot of illegal Mexican workers in the US, so I might have an overly critical view. It would be entirely appropriate for you to nominate it yourself, I have written or expanded plenty of articles on places I haven't visited and things I haven't seen. If you do nominate, I'll be glad to help with a hook and the review. Many DYK noms go through a dozen hooks before being finalized. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the film on line or at any library available to me. There is a time limit for posting a DYK nomination, five days or a week or so. You should look at some of the other listings, this will certainly be more exciting than The People's Palace (Kinshasa). μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: Going back to the top of the conversation, your info put my article online. I'm very grateful, as I attempt to lose the word 'my' and let other editors have at it.

I use OCLC as much as possible, because it lists the libraries nearby that have the work in question (274 miles to Abilene in my case). I'm reading your comment and am thinking of my own advice: You can walk in to any college/university library in the US and request an inter-library loan, and get anything. Why didn't I think of that? Still, maybe, writing an article without access to the primary source may be the ultimate for an editor here.

The DYK time line flies in the face of WP:TIND. There's been 3 edits in two weeks and no AfD/PROD/Speedy Delete to this article (my greatest fear). As an editor, I want my edits to stick, but they don't always...I see appropriate edits to my edits in hindsight, and can see where I've gone over the top with literary license, and other errors. "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia."

So, I see DYK as a lesser version of GA/FA. Since I'm an unpaid contributor, I may submit my this appropriately short article for FA instead of DYK. Does WP:BOLD cover this? I think not, but it is the spirit that counts. Do you have an opinion on this (given that many WP articles on movies are pretty crappy, and do not cite literary journals as references, as this one does)?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As to your bottom line question the article is currently rated as a start-class quality article (see the template at the top of the talk page), and that would not be sufficient for a GA/FA article. I am not expert on that, so if you want help I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Help desk for advice.

But, given the difficulty sourcing this article, I would really suggest you focus your energy on something new, like a song or album (this is just and example) by a popular group, but one which currently lacks an article. For example, only four of the songs of one of my favorite albums, Sweet Dreams have articles. It should be easy to write a new article on another song. Personally, I write new articles only when I am inspired, not in order to get listed--although I expect to write something worth listing when I do get inspired. I strongly suggest you think of such a goal, and express it at the help desk. Editors there will either help you or give you better guidance than I can. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: Thanks, I've been considering that, but not along those lines. As I wrote the article in question, I started being annoyed by the obvious WP:systemic bias in the redlinks in that article. There are small-time-actors here who have articles here, yet the Hispanic actors of note don't have an article. Out of fairness to them, I'm a bit pissed.

Also, like CONACINE, a major conglomerate (is/was) on this continent, has no article? What?

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen where I go next, thanks for your comment.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You cannot be angry that redlinks exist. Just write the articles for them yourself. Everyone here works only on what interests them. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aladdin Sane. 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)

December 2016

Hello, I'm Jtrrs0. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Federalist_No._68 seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aladdin Sane. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aladdin Sane. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)