User talk:ChrisMartinYoung

WP:BADCHARTS[edit]

I am reverting a rather large number of your edits which had added the Croatia Airplay chart, now listed at WP:BADCHARTS. The chart in question was added to that list about 2 months ago, after the article was deleted, identifying it as a non-notable chart. When it was added to BADCHARTS, the editor apparently missed removing it from GOODCHARTS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ChrisMartinYoung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 8 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Renegades (X Ambassadors song) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Nine Track Mind page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encore: Movie Partners Sing Broadway[edit]

In your edit summary here, who do you mean when you say "should've rephrased that"/who are you telling to "focus while reading"? If that was aimed at me, I don't know what you're talking about or what that was even inspired by. If that was in reference to me and you had seen my previous summary, My edit summary was in frustration at whoever (I didn't even check the history until now) only slightly reworded what Billboard actually said in their article, which, in my opinion, is lazy. Ss 112 17:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just saw what Cornerstonepicker had done/said earlier. Ss 112 17:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: found this ironically relevant regarding you not seeing the Austrian chart being showed twice on Cheap Thrills article. But yeah, regarding the rest, you do you. I guess.

That's not how you tag people, and that's not what irony is. Seriously, you just reverted me for no reason on Cheap Thrills (Sia song), and then undid yourself straight after so you could write a little edit summary aimed at me. You shouldn't be writing edit summaries aimed at anybody (and I'm not insulted by "spending 24/7 on music article [sic]" anyway). Any more petty reverts for no reason and you'll be reported. You're bitter, I'm over it. You really took this too personally. Ss 112 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take your own advice and learn from your mistakes, seeing as you evidently just reverted yourself because you were mistaken. In future, if you want to say something to me, write on my talk page, and don't use reverts to communicate your unhappiness. Ss 112 20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a person who often have conflicts with other editors, this is irony itself. No need to insult you, that was not my intention since we are talking about wikipedia edits and editing "music article [syc] typo perfectionist?". Try best reporting - and maybe, suing - me, if that soothes you. In other words, you do you, again. Who cares, in the end? That's not why both of us are on Wikipedia, I mean. Thanks for your 5 minutes of "non-bitterness" "not offended" on my page, hope you steamed off a bit. ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Suing"? Does that even make sense to you? Be rational, not dramatic. And no, you still evidently don't understand what irony is. I edit my comments all the time, and I find it funny that you didn't and can't follow your own advice—that's not being bitter. You're bound to run into conflicts with other Wikipedia editors if you expand your scope a bit outside of reverting one editor several times on one page, mate, and stop stalking my talk page or whatever it is you're doing to gather info on me (where are all these conflicts I have anyway? You must be noticing things I don't). Please move on, for your sake and others'. Ss 112 20:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, really, you're the one who came back days later, not minutes as I'm doing on your talk page, to revert me just so you could write a petty edit summary, then you think you can lecture me on needing to move on and not be bitter. I was over it and I thought you were, with your "you do you" message on your talk page. Ss 112 20:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting interesting.., Dude, I also usually edit music-related articles, and often go to their "view history" section. There are soooo many long captions accomanying the edits, and surprise, they're from Ss112. Seems like we need to re-define "stalking [syc]" and "paranoia", no? I understand English perfectly, hence I know what "irony" stands for. Not sure about you, though. Do not care, in other words. I'm actually in the process if learning from my mistakes and I can know now that reverting myself is avtually NOT a mistake, but trying to advice people shouldn't be by this way. So again, what about you? Where is your process? Is it when you point fingers at people for "not learning" and "not moving on" when you, actually, post on "their" talk pages several times for more than 10 minutes now? And you are telling me to "please move on [syc]"? What? ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Days later cuz I was offline, not contemplating about the issue? Viewing history of articles has nothing to do with the very user Ss112? I just saw what you wrote to me in the caption of your reverts "three times"? And we are still talking about moving on?

Why are you writing "syc"? It's sic, which indicates a mistake in the quoted material, which I did to you because you wrote "music article" when you meant plural. I don't care about your own biased assessment of your English skills because what I'm reading right now is questionable. Ss 112 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "syc [sic]" stands for. Questioning my English? The only time our English skills matter is when we edit articles, not when we are trying our best to validate our irrelevant opinions on talkpages, for the matter.

Reference errors on 27 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Cheap Thrills (song) page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Cheap Thrills (song), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

Please make sure that when you add charts to pages, you add an accurate accessdate. You added charts to a variety of pages earlier, seemingly under the impression that "accessdate" means what date the chart is dated. That goes under date, not accessdate. Accessdate means what the day you accessed that information on, i.e. the current date. Ss 112 16:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I know what "access date" means. It only took me by negligence whilst adding the "Lebanese Top 20" charts on articles earlier today. But hey, thanks for correcting that. ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, ChrisMartinYoung. 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)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Please don't add Hung Medien as sources for All time charts. They are not official charts from the Record chart company. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the notice. ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Side to Side page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats[edit]

Please maintain a consistent date format on pages you edit. Observe what date format is already used on the page (whether it's formatted as "January 5, 2017" or "5 January 2017") and use that in the content you are adding or editing. Thank you. Ss 112 14:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above message and start formatting the date to be consistent on the articles you edit. I have just corrected another batch of pages you appear to have disregarded this on. Ss 112 16:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at All I Want for Christmas Is You, you may be blocked from editing. 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, it's great that that you're still adding year-end charts for 2016 over a month into 2017, so you are not in that much of a hurry to add them that you cannot possibly stop for several more seconds and make sure you're adding a consistent date format. Look on the page you're editing—if it uses "February 2, 2017", don't just copypaste a year-end chart position that has uses the format "2 February 2017". You're adding deliberate inconsistencies which other users would later have to fix with a script and you've been warned enough times. Please start doing this. Ss 112 14:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Chained to the Rhythm.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Stop adding unverified charts to articles if you don't want to get blocked! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Chained to the Rhythm. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, I'm scared!Snowflake, Our lesson today is about hypocrisy. Let's go with your perspective and consider your points you can't even backup, starting with the Chained to The Rhythm charts.ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually using common sense instead of threatening of "reporting" me for doing the same thing you, @SNUGGUMS are doing, which is adding charts that do not exist on WP:BADCHARTS. I am no newbie, I've been here for a year, and one can only dream about me going away anywhere from here. I've been in that place, got through edit wars and reports, and here I am. Common sense always wins, and I only obey to Wikipedia's official rules, not some made up ones by a user here, just like that.ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "common sense" isn't actually common, so that term is therefore flat out meaningless (especially as an argument). Anyway, my comment on personal attacks was how you blatantly patronized IndianBio with the demeaning "snowflake" comment. I also wasn't threatening anybody, and there's no restriction on adding charts when they aren't among the listings that WP:BADCHARTS discourages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence! Thank you!! that sums up the pointless "argument". Your friend Indian whatsoever has previous history in "personal attacks" considering words like "snowflake" "idiot" and "nut" personal attack by the way. So please, read what I previously wrote one more time, let's get our facts straight, stop being a bit hypocritical, admit it and move on.ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newest addition from your very smart Indian friend Good Language is the word "prick" [1]so if I were you, I wouldn't embarrass myself defending such childish fanboy.ChrisMartinYoung (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats[edit]

When adding references, please make the date format in the accessdate parameter (and date parameter, if used) consistent with the style used on the page (either month first or day first). Thank you. Ss 112 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You always got my back when this slippery happen. Thanks, will do. ChrisMartinYoung 21:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Instruction (song)[edit]

Hi User:ChrisMartinYoung, can you use anything from these sources ([2], [3]) on "Instruction" article? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Theo. Sure thing. The Billboard article includes the author's opinion of the song, which can be defined as "Critical reception". I added that. However, the rest of the article and the MTV one seem like trivia related more to the artists rather than the song. ChrisMartinYoung 07:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate that, thanks a lot User:ChrisMartinYoung, can you be on the lookout for a genre or genres for the infobox please. The sources I've read indirectly call the song samba and dancehall, to me it sounds like a tech house song with production made to sound like dancehall and samba. 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. Will do my research till I stumble upon with the perfect match. We really need to find a reliable source that cite the genre directly. Otherwise, we are risking our edits being reverted. Nevertheless the sources that directly cite the influences of the song, not necessarily the genre, can be included in the Composition section. ChrisMartinYoung 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes User:ChrisMartinYoung, "Instruction" article doesn't have a "composition" section at moment, but any influences noted by music journalists should be added too, also: "Feels" by Calvin Harris has recently been made, I've found a Rolling Stone source that directly called the song ska, but it is a bit of a small article, can you add a bit please? 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will have one as soon as soon as musicnotes.com add the notes of the song though. That's great. short or long, direct citations from sources as reliable as Rolling Stone do the job. Okay send it to me if you wish. ChrisMartinYoung 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Australian charts[edit]

Chris, when someone has started updating charts before you, it's a bit rude to jump in and do things ahead of them. I always do Australian certifications right after I do the charts. Instead, I find you've done them ahead of me for some reason despite never having done them before. Ss 112 07:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SS112.. Hey. While it was an absolute coincidence that I viewed the Australian charts and got to update info on Wikipedia myself before anyone else, I had no idea that updating your country's charts and certifications info is handled (officially?) to a native, and specifically, to you. I honestly didn't even see the articles history (who does, when updating info?), hence, I don't see where the rudeness is. ChrisMartinYoung 07:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with me being Australian. Nobody has a claim over doing certain things; I just meant it's polite that if you notice another person has started doing charts/certifications before you for that country, there's no need to jump in as they've got it covered. If you didn't see any other articles besides the ones you updated, then I apologise, but it has seemed that way with other editors before so I guess I jump to that conclusion. Ss 112 07:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point, I apologize for my previous reply and the misunderstanding. I didn't notice, to be honest. It is okay it's not like I didn't jump into conclusions myself, so no need. :) ChrisMartinYoung 07:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

French chart[edit]

lescharts.com has been used as the archive for France for years, and uses SNEP as a source. The SNEP "megafusion" chart is a recent invention. There is no reason to go around and change singlechart archives for lescharts to SNEP's new megafusion chart. If you think we should use the megafusion chart over the archived chart at lescharts.com, please open a discussion at a relevant WikiProject, as I and several other editors I know would disagree with you and you are proposing wide-reaching changes (also per (WP:BRD, do not continue to restore your changes even when you believe you are right). Ss 112 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just writing on your talk page about that till I received the notification. I got that lescharts has been used for years; the edits I recently did were, however, to the telecharge charts, not lescharts. ChrisMartinYoung 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, since it was recently introduced, what's the reason for not citing it as the official French singles chart from now on, at least? ChrisMartinYoung 20:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the lescharts.com archive peak is usually closer to the télécharges/download peak. The télécharges charts are more accurate to the archive we end up using, and are published days in advance of the "megafusion" peak. Ss 112 20:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, ChrisMartinYoung. 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]

Échame la Culpa[edit]

You didn't add the note in the first place, and now you care about its wording? "Overall charts" is clear enough as it is. "Overall charts of nations" does not make it any clearer, and that could also be used to apply to iTunes charts if you think only saying "overall charts" is open for interpretation, considering iTunes charts are for whole nations. If you have a worthwhile perspective on an issue or something to say to a particular editor, an edit summary is not the place to leave it. A talk page is. Please don't continue to edit war either. Thank you. Ss112 19:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Échame la Culpa 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. Ss112 21:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisMartinYoung, I'd also recommend you examine your own actions before accusing others of having "breakdowns" when you've had exactly the same reaction as the person you're claiming is having said "breakdown". The note was written by me in the first place. SNUGGUMS changed the wording; I thought it didn't need to be so specific. You decided to restore it, when it should not have been restored in the first place as it was challenged. You've been reported to an administrator about your tendency and willingness to engage in edit wars rather than discuss. Typing out edit summaries where you snark at people is not discussing something. WP:BRD. Ss112 21:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The note is not targeted at you in the first place, it's targeted at me if you think about it. I have full advantage of responding to it the way I like to. Wording is my full right as a Wikipedia editor. Stick to your own advice first before telling others to. Replace "overall" with "official" and here you go. Those old games become lame so fast. Thanks.

I have no idea what point you're getting at, as usual. Wording in an article that you believe is targeted at you is not your "right" to change at will. I have no idea how I can stick to my "own advice" in this regard. Ss112 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote again, slower this time. The footnote is targeted at me, it's written in the first place because if MY edit. I agree with it, and re-worded it accordingly for the reasons discussed before. If you have a problem with my rights as an editor, then deal with it. SalimIrangi 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reading your poorly worded message slowly is not going to help anybody. This has got nothing to do with your "rights" as an editor. You're acting as if the article is a talk page where you have full right to respond to what someone has said about you. It isn't. It's a mainspace article. You have no more right to change the note than any other editor does. Ss112 21:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hypocritical to accuse others of personalizing stuff and "mocking" the attitude of only editing a main article just to add absolutely no contribution, but for the sake of adding a description irrelevant to that article for ambiguous reasons. Like here [[4]], but eh, of course you gotta have the last word on things, but whatever makes you sleep better, I guess. Happy new year. SalimIrangi 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, of course it's hypocritical to you. You couldn't leave well enough alone, so in future, perhaps space your messages correctly and people won't need to "correct" you with a snarky edit summary about how you couldn't help yourself but by restoring your edit. I didn't say "don't ever write edit summaries that are snarky", I said snarky edit summaries are not a substitute for discussing. Ss112 21:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

 SalimIrangi : SalimIrangi

to

 SalimIrangi : SalimIrangi

—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, ChrisMartinYoung. 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)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]