User talk:Bjelleklang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please note that unless otherwise stated, I will reply here and notify you with this!

This page does not contain all previous posts, please see the archives in the box to the right ->


Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books[edit]

What's wrong with the article? Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books are imprints of Summit Media. This must not be deleted.Sweetchloe16 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sweetchloe16:; The article has no independent coverage, a quick search through Google doesn't seem to give me any relevant results, so as far as I can tell it fails the general notability guideline. A suggestion might be to drop the lists of books, compress the text a little and merge it into the article on Summit Media. You can also then create a List of books published by Summit Media listing the books, awards and so on. But as it stands, I don't think the imprint is notable by itself. Bjelleklang - talk 14:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bjelleklang:; can you retain it because we have to separate the Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books article from the Summit Media article. How about if i renamed it to List of Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books Published by Summit Media. Sweetchloe16 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sweetchloe16:; who are 'we' in this context? Also, why does the article have to be a separate one from Summit Media? Bjelleklang - talk 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bjelleklang:; excuse me, where is the "we" in the context? We, the craetor of this article and me. by the way, we are not the contributor for the Summit Media article. we are only fans of its imprints Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books. Some followers of this articles are collectors of thess books. We are trying to create an article that will list all the books to help them keep track of their collections. I hope you understand us. With regards to the sections without citations, I am requesting for it to be semi-protected to avoid vandalism. The history part must not be stated in the article but I cannot remove it as someone posted it for a reason. Sweetchloe16 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sweetchloe16: Please familiarize yourself with the policies on verifiability, what Wikipedia is not and the guideline on how to identify reliable sources. In short, every article must be about a notable subject and it must have reliable sources. No admin will protect the article for you in order to get rid of the history section, as this is a clear violation of the policy on having no specific point of view. If you want to get rid of it, start a discussion on the article talkpage. And you still didn't answer my question; why can't me merge the info about the imprint into the existing article on Summit Media and create a list of books they have published? Bjelleklang - talk 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for warning User:Neyn. You might be interested to see this: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364. Regards, kashmiri TALK 19:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Already seen it, got a checkuser to help me out. Have closed two AN3 cases, and I'm about to reply to User:Neyn now. Bjelleklang - talk 19:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bjelleklang: Thanks :) kashmiri TALK 20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
In appreciation of your efficient behind-the-scenes work to contain an aggressive sock farm. kashmiri TALK 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
In appreciation of your efficient behind-the-scenes work to contain an aggressive sock farm. kashmiri TALK 23:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Bjelleklang, FYI, I suspect user REPARADOR of being a sock of SCDREPARAR. This user has been disruptive for a number of years. Please see conversation at User talk:JamesBWatson. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks, I saw another SPI on the same user as well; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/REPARADOR. I decided not to block REPARADOR as he was reverting the removal of a source that seemed legitimate. Bjelleklang - talk 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

3RRN report[edit]

Hi Bjelleklang. Thank you very much for your help in ending the harassment by that user. If you don't mind, at the 3RRN report you added the result "blocked", but I think since the filer was blocked, perhaps a mention can be added that it was the filer of the report who got blocked. Thank you again. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

Dear Bjelleklang, I am so relieved about your 3RR decision on 11 January. I have allowed myself to suffer under this editor for the past 12 months, that I ve been editing on WP. I cannot tell you how grateful I am for you to look at things and take action- unlike all the other admins we "petitioned". I didnt look who you are until posting this, but I am not surprised. What a breath of fresh air ! Thanks !--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For investing time in getting to the bottom of an aggressive sock farm which was marring several AfD discussions. Thanks for your time and effort! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Greybull company submission[edit]

Thanks for taking the time for the notes & suggestions with the rejection Bjelleklang. I've been on a long holiday, but I’d like to keep going and try & get the submission right next time.

Sorry to make your job harder by being overambitious. I tried to offer as complete & balanced an article as I could, which was reckless for a first time effort.

I've read the link you offered & I think Greybull is notable. I knew nothing about them, but when they were headline news in all papers & on TV last year, I tried to look them up & was surprised that for a company owning such major parts of the UK high street and other business sectors, there was no wiki mention and no business summary visible elsewhere.

Re your suggestions;

1) “remove contact info”; That would be their address & company nr? Will do. (other wiki company pages gave HO addresses, so I tried to copy them). I’ll reduce it to ‘of London, England’

2) “Keep the article short” Agreed, I’ll cut it down.

3) “Remove contents not directly related to the company” OK I see several & will do; (Greybull’s purchases seem often in tandem with another investor, so I thought that relevant – but it’s certainly not vital).

4) “Focus on why Greybull Capital is notable” That’s tricky. I think it is the big companies that it owns which makes Greybull notable. It owns, has shut-down & has rescued household names who are on all main high-streets. I’ll try adding a short heading paragraph at the top, to justify why it is notable.

5) “Find relevant references that primarily discuss the company and not companies they own or the owners of Greybull” I did have a hunt & will look again. But the many articles I’ve read on Greybull concentrate on their current purchases or deal. Little is visible on what the company is. I quoted a journalist’s description of them as being an address with an unmarked bell push on the wall.

6) “Ignore the companies it owns” Hopefully there some leeway allowed here? Unlike normal companies, Greybull seems effectively to be just the sum of the companies it owns. Take away those companies’ details & Greybull (though very big in jobs, business & financially), might just be physically described as email address with a doorbell.

7) [Don’t primarily discuss] “…the owners of Greybull” A journalist said they have a telephonist, but unlike a normal companies of such high value, Greybull appears to be effectively just its 3 owners. Yet it is a company owning & controlling £100M’s of UK business, so the ownership does seems important. I appreciate transient shareholders are not relevance to most companies, but Greybull is an investment vehicle for its 3 owners.

So could I ask 3 questions before I try a resubmission?

1) Do you think it would be acceptable to keep the companies it owns in the current heading format? (I’ll reduce the entry sizes)

2) If so, can we keep the 4 smaller companies on the list (I’ll try & reduce their single sentence entries). Happy to remove them if asked, but it seems to me that the interest here is that Greybull runs huge companies when it co-ordinates other investors; but it also owns outright & runs medium size ones itself. These smaller companies are also of serious size (£5M companies / or employing 400 / or dominating their business sector)

3) This company is unusual & as an investment & management vehicle for its 3 owners, so is it OK to keep some of the ownership part in. I think owners might themselves be described as notable, giving national TV & journalist interviews. But I’ll aim to halve the 6 paragraphs in this part.

Regards Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ First of all, don't write a short article just for the sake of having a short article, but it's often easier to write if you stick to the most important bits. Listing the most important companies is ok, but keep in mind that notability isn't inherited; just because they happen to own or be major investors in well-known chains or stores, that doesn't make Greybull notable. The GNG is the most important thing to consider here; having notable owners doesn't make the company notable; if they happen to be interviewed frequently you need to look at the context. If a CEO is interviewed for being a successful CEO, he might be notable. If he is interviewed as a representative of the company he leads, the company (and not the CEO) might be notable. It all really boils down to finding sources good enough to satisfy the requirement stated in the GNG; if you can do that the rest should be fairly easy. Bjelleklang - talk 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Advices on EU research and innovation for the environment[edit]

Hi and thanks for your comments. I have 2 quick questions for you:

1. how can I change the title? it seems almost impossible to do that 2. as you advised I would like to add a kind of synopsis right after the title and before the content. But again, I can't seem to do that, all content goes under "content"

thanks in advance, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniamo (talkcontribs) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. - To change the title, simply move the page. Go to this page to move it.
  2. - If you add text before the first heading it will show up above the table of contents. Headings are denoted by equal signs; so add your text before the first ==Background==.

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Bjelleklang - talk 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

great, thanks a lot! I managed to change the title and added a small introduction! got it now! cheers, Monica

Bohra succession[edit]

Hello Bjelleklang. I'm glad to see you trying to moderate at Talk:Mohammed Burhanuddin. This topic can use all the help it can get. There is a certain amount of partisan editing, but when it occurs it's usually easy to recognize. I've been alerting people under WP:ARBIPA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am extremely bothered by EdJohnston and his understanding of partisan editing. Even efforts to balance the topic and give it a genuinely neutral feel have been summarily dismissed. I have been served a ban merely for including facts without any POV. The articles Mufaddal Saifuddin, Mohammed Burhanuddin and Dawoodi Bohra in particular have been allowed to have a malign and negative POV only with references to groups that are not in support of the community and its practises.
These articles are imbalanced, unfavourable to the subjects in them and there is simply no fair arbitration being done by people who actually have any knowledge of the community or the leaders in these articles. I can find not onesingle favourable mention in any of them.

You seem to be a diligent and careful appraiser and I would very much appreciate your careful looking into this.Noughtnotout (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are here in order to get the ban lifted I'm sorry to disappoint you. Please follow the instructions left by User:EdJohnston and make a formal appeal. Bjelleklang - talk 22:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sharon Davson[edit]

hello, Thank you for your advice and assistance. i understand most of what you are striving to achieve and will continue to do my best to work withinthe guidelines. With regard to the things at the top of the article, there was only a very brief stud article here in December 2014, so all references to things that date from 2010-2014, are no longer relevant to the article that has been generated in recent weeks. The article is in a prose format. It has citations for verification. It is not an orphan. I am an artist and know the work of the subject. I understand the prose to be mostly information written in the style of other Wikipedia entries I have studied. The article is full of real information. Putting up these blatant headings above this article is very discouraging has the feeling that there is some other motive other than reviewing the current article that has been generated without the former article being there in any form. All the very best, ~~Joan~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Silver (talkcontribs) 09:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joan Silver: I have removed some of the maintenance templates; but the ones regarding BLP and COI has to remain, as these are current issues. You might want to take a look at the essay titled "Verifiability, not truth". The short version is that Wikipedia requires reliable sources for information; and websites or material created by people or organizations closely related to the subject of an article isn't considered reliable. Bjelleklang - talk 09:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Again,
I am trying to understand and will review my previous content. There were many references used that came from the web. I now feel pretty discouraged by the removal of so much content that took ages to source and reference. She is an outstanding Australian who has done things in many areas with high calibre people. I will give up for now. ~~Joan Silver|Joan Silver~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Silver (talkcontribs) 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Joan Silver: Keep in mind that everything is available in the history of the page, so instead of writing everything from scratch, you can copy sections from there and fix them as needed. And remember to sign posts on talkpages with four tildes ~~~~. Bjelleklang - talk 09:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. When I feel up to it again, I will bring up the old information and see what works. I am confused about signing these talk bits. Is this how to use the four tildes <nwikiJoan Silver (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)JoanSilverJoan Silver (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)</nowiki> ?

Edits to this page over the last few days have several verifiability issues, Nd other editorial problems. Also, just noticed; I think it's a walled garden. Bigger problem too: the multi-million dollars sales reports are massively contentious. A little more balance may be needed on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

also, edit history looks suspiciously like sock puppetry.
It looks like a lot of the contributions to this page came from accounts involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson. GoneWilde (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@GoneWilde: Thanks for telling me; I knew about the SPI and had a feeling they were connected. Unfortunately I've been too busy to help for the past few days :/ Bjelleklang - talk 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
my recent edit to this just got reverted and the explanation doesn't seem right. My gut feeling on this is another sock. Could you take a look please? GoneWilde (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. It seems to address the opposing sources, although it is a little wordy. GoneWilde (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson as Trevor Brook seems to behave and edit in a similar manner to the socks and was created two days after the socks got banned. GoneWilde (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Thankyou for intervening when it was needed GoneWilde (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why you keep on changing my editing?[edit]

Benfica is the biggest club in the world, according to the FIFA and the Guiness Book of Records (quotation on page). Please don't revert my change without presenting a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt78 (talkcontribs) 12:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pt78: You are replacing a fairly recent source (November 2014) with an outdated one from 2006. I have explained this on your talkpage[1] as well as twice in the edit history of the article[2]. Bjelleklang - talk 12:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The Guinness Book of World Records entry is the record established in 2006. There's still not a new record. The FIFA source is actual. The source you provide is not from the Bundesliga. Stop reverting my editing or you be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt78 (talkcontribs) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pt78: Fair enough, its the record established in 2006. However; it's still outdated, and is challenged by the source you replaced, which is newer. Just because someone set a record several years ago, we don't go around presenting that as still current if others have challenged it; especially as they now claim to have almost 100.000 more supporters than the old record. Fifa also presents a lower number than what the Bundesliga article claims, so it's plain wrong to state that Benefica is the biggest club as a fact when we have at least one source contradicting it. Bjelleklang - talk 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So I think that the right thing for you to say is that "according to bundesliga numbers Bayern is the biggest club". Such status was not confirmed by FIFA nor recognized by the GBR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt78 (talkcontribs) 12:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pt78: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Presenting Benfica as the biggest club is wrong when there are multiple reliable sources stating otherwise ([3], [4], [5]). These are reliable sources that are newer than the ones you base your opinion on; and are no more or less reliable than FIFA or the Guinness book of World Records. The fact that we don't know what Benfica's current membership number is at right now doesn't matter; reliable sources have heard the claim that Bayern has a larger membership and decided to publish the claim; and that is all we need to state so in the article. Before you do any further reverts I strongly advise you to participate in the discussions at the talkpages for Benfica and/or Bayern where this very issue has been discussed before. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could indent your posts and sign them properly using four tildes (~~~~). Bjelleklang - talk 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


I think KansasBear, HistoryOfIran and Edward321 of one bangs. All of them are uzbekophobs. They even the Uzbek of Bedilya too wanted to make not the Uzbek .They in the page of Uzbeks added nothing but much that removed without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAlfanfafafa (talkcontribs) 07:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@SAlfanfafafa: As you have seen there is a discussion going on at the talkpage. Please be civil, don't accuse others of being uzbekophobs and participate in the discussion. Bjelleklang - talk 07:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper[edit]

Thank you for this warning on JimMacAllistair's talk page, but I do not think it will do any good. His edits on other articles follow the same pattern. Regarding your AN3 comment, please correct this statement: "You're both currently at three reverts each ..." I reverted this editor only twice, not three times, in the past 24 hours: here and here. In each case, I reverted incorrect and unsourced changes to the article by this editor. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 January[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:

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, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Child Welfare Services (Norway)[edit]

Hello, you declined semi-protection of Child Welfare Services (Norway) under the reason that there was "Not enough recent disruptive activity .."

The reason for this Not enough activity is that both User:Iselilja and myself are using a slow revert policy; but please take a look at this IP activity in the hours after your descicion. IMHO this calls for page protection. Bw --Orland (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom's question[edit]

I tried to respond to Prhartcom's question, unfortunately, he deleted my comment. I will post it here if you don't mind.

@Prhartcom: You somehow "forgot" to mention three very important points.

  • You became involved the moment you manipulated someone into adding a version that suited Curly while the discussion was still taking place. So do us all a big favour and drop the act of the so called uninvolved editor.
  • A few hours later, in what you described as blatant canvassing, you asked Curly to support you (which he did almost instantaneously).
  • You attempted to discredit those whom you disagree with by trying to guess where they're from, what they care about, what they do for a living and most importantly, by calling them geeks, trolls, immature and schoolyard bullies (I'll be more than glad to provide Bjelleklang with a diff that proves it).

You're trying to manipulate an admin by pretending to be a learner while where you were heading was obvious right from the beginning. The reason is quite obvious (you do your "friend" a favour and expect one in return, just like you did before). Who cares about what the others have to say so long as you get what you want.

@Bjelleklang: I contacted Nick yesterday and predicted exactly what Prhartcom was trying to achieve with his "innocent" question. He assured me that you are an experienced admin and that I should trust your judgement (which I do), however, I thought you might like to know all the facts before making any decision. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@MoorNextDoor: Regardless of his intentions, the outcome is the same :) If he indeed is trying to manipulate me it's not really going to do much for him; as an admin my task is to prevent disruption and promote cooperation, regardless of how un/involved he is. I blocked you and two others to stop the EW going on two days ago, and hopefully it wont come to that again. If a new EW appears to break out though, the article will be protected and any edits have be requested from the talkpage where a discussion should take place before it's approved. At least that's my view; blocking again won't really do much to resolve any underlying issues, and will only serve to drive people away from the article. Bjelleklang - talk 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bjelleklang: I understand perfectly, I just wanted to draw your attention to the canvassing issue which, as far as I'm concerned, is a major one. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Celia Berrell - OBJECTION to deletion as not Notable[edit]

Hello, Celia Berrell is a very notable poet. very few poets ever get published. She has her work in the High School Text books in Three Countries - Australia, Ireland and Canada. Education institutions in those countries consider her work worth studying by their students. She is also an 'approved resource' for the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in the UK. She is also regularly published in the CSIRO Magazine - a national magazine for those interested in science related matters. This is extremely rare for a poet. She has received a grant and had a large body of work vetted by the James Cook University in Queensland. She has a book of her poems published, and many more attributes. i understood by adding this and working on her site, the potential 'deletion' would be removed as I had also logged an objection while editing and improving the content. Berrell is becoming one of Australia's most notable poets. The references on the site all attest to the notability Sarah Thinking 26 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Sarah Thinking 26Sarah Thinking 26 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC) ~~Sarah thinking26~~

@Sarah Thinking 26: It's not about being published, it's about having reliable sources for establishing notability. She is a writer as well, and the sources present when I nominated it indicated that some of the credits mentioned in the article was for her as a writer where she also happened to get a poem published (such as the in-flight magazines and others).
As for your objection to my original prodding of the article; a "prod" is simply a deletion proposal that runs for a certain period; if it isn't challenged the article is deleted. Once you did that without adding sources that satisfied me of her notability, I decided to do a formal deletion nomination. That will run for 5 days giving the community a chance to argue either for or against deletion, as well as to propose other actions (such as redirection). Bjelleklang - talk 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WWE Championship page.[edit]

Hello, I noticed something that needs to be changed on the WWE Championship page, I was going to do it myself but the page is locked & protected to prevent vandalism. I then noticed that you can edit the page.. Instead of "John Cena (12 times)", can you please put "John Cena (15 times)" because that's the number of wwe championship reigns John Cena has had. Please & thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMizIsAwesome24 (talkcontribs) 14:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@TheMizIsAwesome24: Can you please provide the exact link of the page to be changed, as well as a reliable source confirming the number? Bjelleklang - talk 15:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bjelleklang here is the source to prove that John Cena is indeed a 15-time WWE Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMizIsAwesome24 (talkcontribs) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Question re 3RR determination[edit]

Regarding your determination at WP:3RRV that no violation had been made, these are the diffs that were provided with the complaint (original was a bit more verbose and included the original insertion of the material that was deleted by the complainant).

  1. 2015-02-02 22:22 [6]
  2. 2015-02-02 22:23 [7]
  3. 2015-02-02 22:49 [8]
  4. 2015-02-03 21:24 [9]

I thought that these "counted" as the requisite four reverts within 24 hours. Can you tell me how I made a mistake, so I can do it correctly if necessary in the future? — Brianhe (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, hope you didn't miss this question. Really interested in what the disconnect is/was here. Brianhe (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond to you, but I've been busy offwiki for the past few days. I honestly don't know what to say on this one, it was clearly a 3RR violation and he should have been blocked. I somehow overlooked it and messed it up. I have taken a look at his recent edits, and he seems to behave himself now, so it will be wrong of me to block him several days after the violation. However, if you do see someone editwarring again, don't hesitate to let me know. Again, sorry for overlooking such an obvious violation. Bjelleklang - talk 19:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Sayerslle[edit]

Hey, just a heads up, users arer allowed to remove active block notices per the "clarification" of WP:BLANKING.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I double checked the policy and decided to let it slide just in case I was wrong as it wasn't specified as an exception. Bjelleklang - talk 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


youtube is not a reliable source, seriously. You think the video on there, that someone magically hardcoded in the CORRECT f.... name. I also have recorded the episode from TV on my HD GENIE BOX. You people are like dealing with people who are missing a few marbles in the bunch. Get f... real. The episode for air crash investigation S14E01 is Choosing Sides. What does it take to burn that into those .... skulls of you 2. God damn funny how every episode out there of this episode all are titled "CHOOSING SIDES". but yet you 2 .... want to make others think you are smart, but yet can not provide 1 video to me that shows the title as M1 Plane Crash. I find that f... HILARIOUS. Bunch of little kids with no jobs or lives wanting to play power control and have no f... clue what they are talking about. You want to talk reliable, for god sakes, there are 50 web sites that list titles and episode numbers for every TV show and movie out there. They do not always jive with each other. That is how reliable your "RELIABLE" is. So get off your piddy pots and grow up and take it like a man and accept you are f.... wrong. Seahawks65 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded here. Bjelleklang - talk 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection error[edit]

Not sure what to make of your statement at WP:RFPP, but I think you made a mistake somewhere. Robert McClenon requested 2-3 days of semiprotection for WP:RDS, and you responded with "Template protected for 3 months" and followed up by saying why you thought it ought to be semiprotected. (1) Which protection level did you intend to use? (2) Which page were you intending to protect? shows no protections since last month. (3) All this makes me wonder if you were actually responding to a different request, or if your message accidentally got garbled in some way. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thanks for spotting it; my comment was intended for Template:History of Korea which was protected for 3 months. I protected WP:RDS for three days. Bjelleklang - talk 20:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Makes a lot more sense :-) At first I was shocked that you'd T-protect a very public page for more than a tiny amount of time (it's meant for ordinary users to be able to use!), especially after a request for just two or three days, but when I checked the page and saw that an IP had edited it hours after your last comment, I realised that there was a mistake somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure RD/S needs 3 days of semiprotection, if semiprotection at all. The last trolling was almost 24 hours ago, and it gets frequent good-faith edits from IPs, so it's generally never protected for more than a few hours at a time. Mr.Z-man 21:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for taking action to protect the Xiongnu page due to the edit warring of Uniquark9. You may wish to know, however, that this is a pattern of behavior for this user. He frequently blanks his talk page to hide all the other warnings and notices placed there. He was blocked in December for using a sock account in an edit war. There was a complaint against him placed on the ANI board recently. Distressingly, that has now been archived with no action taken, despite every user participating in the discussion being for some sort of sanction, including a topic ban. It is baffling to me that no admin took further action against this user. Everywhere he goes he edit wars, causes disruption, is abrasive to other users, and likely engages in sock puppetry. I encourage you to review this recent complaint. Protecting one page from his disruption is simply not enough. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex; he basically have one choice now; either to participate or to stay away. If he continues to revert once the protection wears out using the same arguments as before, he's likely to end up with a block. Bjelleklang - talk 01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Well he was already blocked once, yet his behavior has continued unabated. I've given up working on the pages he becomes involved in because nothing is ever done about him and his sock compatriots. And for that matter, you blocked the page in the version that he has been warring to keep. So he wins again. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't "decide" what version to protect. That would make me involved, I have to protect the latest revision as long as it doesn't blatantly violate eg. the BLP. The best thing you can do now is to propose an edit, give it a few hours and then tag it with the protected edit template. As long as you have good arguments for it it shouldn't be a problem getting it through. Bjelleklang - talk 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

History templates[edit]

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from the same problem as template:History of Korea. Can you please semi-protect the page? Cydevil38 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Bjelleklang - talk 06:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Can something please be done about Trackteur? He is clearly intent on edit-warring, and his English is incompetent, as has been pointed out multiple times and as is evident in his edit comment "and not confusion print run and sold out" and adding text like "print run of 60,000 in French language". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

He appears to be in the middle of another edit war, as well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey:: Sorry for the late response. I've looked at his contribs, and they seem fine to me, at least for now. You might want to leave him alone, at least for now as he's already been warned by another user for the reverts on ARPANET. Ping me if he keeps reverting, but remember to WP:AGF. 09:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Look how long it took him to revert again to the same broken English. This is following a notice on his talk page, and having his errors explain to him several times . He's also trying to hide what he did with the edit comment "répétition, space". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User seemingly slipped past AGT block[edit]

Apparently the user User:Zooperstars won AGT 2008 has an autoconfirmed (although very new) account and is continuing with the vandalism, last night with America's Got Talent (season 3). As you can see by their contributions, the account is dedicated solely to this vandalism. I just thought I'd keep you up to date. Cheers! Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allen Jones (whistleblower), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kickback. 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) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding talk page usage[edit]

Since you are an administrator and have posted at Talk: Remember (The Walking Dead)#RFC: Can the plot summary contain a separate/block quote?, I'd like to ask you a question about article talk page usage. FWIW, I'm not out for blood or to get anyone punished. Rather, I would just like to know what is the preferred course of action in such situations just in case I am faced with the same thing in the future. Anyway, here is what happened. This post was added to the thread by Wikimandia and I posted this in response. Later on, inserted this comment in between the Wikimandia's post and my reply, which makes it seem as if I was replying to both editors even though I wasn't. Thinking this was done by accident, I moved the's post to the end of the thread per WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors and them left a note explaining what I did and why. I was, however, reverted by the with the edit sum "it was where I intended it to be, the bold makes them distinct enough". Did I overreact and make a big deal out of nothing? Was it inappropriate for me to move's post to ensure proper chronological and contextual order? Again, this is intended to be for my own future reference and is not at all to be seen as a complaint against another editor. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: According to WP:TPO moving other posts aren't allowed, but you can remedy this quite easy by adding {{small|Reply to [[User:Wikimandia]]:}} at the start of your post. This should avoid any confusion. Bjelleklang - talk 14:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply to User:Bjelleklang: Thanks for the feedback. WP:TPO also says that "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" and then goes on to list various examples such as WP:TPG#Fixing format errors and WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors where indenting/moving another editors post is considered acceptable. FWIW, no content was changed, I just moved the post to make the thread easier to follow. I was directly responding to another editors post, one indentation level below their's, so I didn't think a "reply to" was necessary. Anyway, it's a mute point now. Live and learn. Thanks again for the clarification and your time. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem, happy I could help :) Bjelleklang - talk 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

SP Request[edit]

Thank you very much for having protect Lynn's book against vandalism. I notice that TheRedPenOfDoom continue to delete what he doesn't like of the page. Could you do something for this ?

Thanks !

Darwin1986 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi saw your changes to 'Inflammist' article. Meant to add in my revert that maybe the article should also be deleted as I to only found Google references that were based in this article. While there are people / performers who could be called 'inflammists' (I know some) there are not any reliable sources to back up this. I would agree with your suggestion to delete this article (because additionally there are no mainstream dictionary definitions I have found for the term). However it would be good to add to / change the Pyrotechnic article to include information re the use of fire and hand held fireworks. Pyrotechnicians do not only use explosive devices (in fact the lead in this article misleads). What do you think?Robynthehode (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robynthehode:; I think the lead is fairly inclusive; A pyrotechnician is a person who is responsible for the safe storage, handling, and functioning of pyrotechnics and pyrotechnic devices. The article on Pyrotechnics starts by saying that it is the science of using materials capable of undergoing self-contained and self-sustained exothermic chemical reactions for the production of heat, light, gas, smoke and/or sound. I'm not sure if we need to be so specific, but feel free to change the articles if you want to. Bjelleklang - talk 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bjelleklang:: There is some confusion. I was referring to the article about Pyrotechnicians not the one on Pyrotechnics. Didn't check to see if there were both. Yes I agree with you re the Pyrotechnics article. As you may see on the Pyrotechnicians article the lead mentions 'explosives' rather than the more inclusive definition in the other article. Happy to change the lead but does Wikipedia need both articles?Robynthehode (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Robynthehode: It depends; if there are enough material and sources to support two articles there is no problem having them. Bjelleklang - talk 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

List of computer system manufacturers[edit]

@Bjelleklang: Hello, i'm just replying to your message on my talk page, The reason i had reinserted "non-notable" manufactures is i have found websites of them, proving to be active, but now from your message i know that simply a website is not enough, but my OCD senses are going crazy that some manufactures that i had believed to be notable is no longer on the page. Could you please list some ways to check notability for manufacturers that don't have a Wikipedia page? Luiskeniosis (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Luiskeniosis: Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline lists some examples of what to look for. If you can find articles that talk about the company, and not just specific (recent) products you usually have a good start, especially if they mention the history of the company. Also keep in mind that if you can find an article or two, you might also have what it takes to start an article about the company; one sentence is enough to make a stub. If you find any articles about the companies and are uncertain if they are enough, please let me know and I'll be happy to look at them as well. If we can expand the list with more companies it would be great! Bjelleklang - talk 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect COI tag in 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)[edit]

This is as a gentle reminder for the COI related proofs given on my talk page on your request, the user ruqn has proven close connection to one of the claimants namely Mufaddal and to undermine the contents of the article he has put the COI tag eventhough he is not a major contributor to that article. I am a major contributor to the article and the tag indirectly accuses me of COI. The contents of that article were not just written unopposed but only after a thorough discussion with 3rd party editors on the talk page and the article was also reviewed later. The article sufficiently cites the various articles relevant to the controversy hence I find no reason to have a COI tag. No other 3rd party editors involved in the article since inception have agreed to addition of the tag, inspite of repeated calls.Summichum (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Summichum: Sorry for the delay in responding to this, and thanks for the links. First of all, please don't read too much into the picture, as we have no way of knowing the context. If he has admitted to being a member of the DB, please give the exact diff _every time_ you make the allegation that he has a COI, otherwise people might mistake it for bad-faith allegations. Second; the COI tag is to inform readers that a contributor to the article has a COI. If he has a COI as you suggest, the tag might be reasonable. It doesn't accuse you or anyone else of having a COI. Even if an article has a good amount of references, it can still be biased, so that by itself doesn't rule out the COI tag. Also, I happened to notice your latest remark at the SPI case against Md iet; "His contributions itself are evidences that it is a sock of md iet as he directly jumped to bohra articles". You did the same, didn't you? Please be careful when you present your arguments, as there is a thin line between having a good case and making bad-faith accusations.
I saw your request from the SPI page; Please find a permanent solution to this problem as md iet is creating accounts to evade block and bans and wasting admin time; sorry, but there is no such solution. If he is indeed an IP-hopping vandal (as my impression is), the only thing we can do is to block socks as they appear. Bjelleklang - talk 10:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Douglas L. Miller[edit]

Dear Bjelleklang,

I'm writing regarding the rejection of my entry on Douglas L. Miller.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this entry. I'm very puzzled, however, as to why Mr. Miller is not considered worthy of inclusion, especially after I revised the entry with the first reviewer's comments in mind. I hope you can help me either improve the entry or you will reconsider it.

I'm a professional journalist, and I've done a lot of work for nonprofits, including Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus of Grameen Bank. I've met a lot of brilliant people in my work, but I am astounded by how much Mr. Miller has accomplished and his bold goals. I believe Mr. Miller's work, like that of Yunus, is potentially world-changing.

Most people I know don't even know what venture philanthropy is. And Mr. Miller has indeed worked to keep a low profile himself. Philanthropists tend to keep quiet, or everyone is asking them for money. However, he is quoted by no less than Harvard Business Review and numerous other sources as one of the world's leading pioneers of venture philanthropy (see my entry). This field is relatively new but growing rapidly all over the world, in large part thanks to him. As I indicated in the entry, he is responsible for almost 400 organizations donating money or professional services to needy non-profits. There is no one who has done more for the field.

As a journalist, I appreciate the need to distinguish "notable" people from others. But in a culture that increasingly declares people as "celebrities" when they have done pretty much nothing except appear on television, isn't it important to recognize those who are actually out there trying to improve the world? Your readers would benefit tremendously from this entry, as many may either want to contribute to this cause or could benefit from it.

I look forward to your response. (Also, please note, for some strange reason I could not even see your review until recently.)

Thank you again, MaBranca (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@MaBranca: Hi. Please see my comment on the draft; "Most sources seem to be based on interviews or trivial mentions. Please provide reliable sources that contain enough information to pass the general notability guideline and the policy regarding biographies of living people.". Bjelleklang - talk 07:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Naik Foundation[edit]

Dear Bjelleklang,

With reference to your deletion of the article "Naik Foundation" ( We would like to kindly inform that there has been considerable reference, news articles and press releases in the topic of Naik foundation. I am given to understand that the page was again deleted in March 2015 based on a deletion article published in 2012. However the rest of the references and the awards given by the government of india between 2012 and 2015 has given much credibility to the article. Please request you to reconsider this before the decision to delete the article is taken up.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 3)[edit]

Sadly, this article is getting hit with the same kind of vandalism as before. Could this be protected again, perhaps for a longer period than before? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection of no-go area[edit]

Hello. [[no-go area] has been protected since Feb 8 of this year, and basically has not been edited since. Perhaps it could be reduced to semi-protected? While I find it amusing that "no-go area" is a no-go area, to change an ampersand into the word "and" I will have to leave a request on the talk page. Huw Powell (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Attempting wikibreak[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Attempting wikibreak has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shirlee Taylor Haizlip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansonia. 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) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thank you so much for your helpful advice for the MATE-Museo Mario Testino page, I have added a new update to the main section by including some more references. A lot of the ones that we have used are from the first page on Google searches so I have done my best to find the most notable references.

Smerakumar (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


I have removed the {{prod}} tag from MotorBrands, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:F462:E14B:BD77:9AA8 (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC notice[edit]

As someone interested in the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I thought I'd let you know an RFC has been started over reliable sources. Please join in Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svgHello, Bjelleklang. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your inappropriate comments on my talk page[edit]

Multiple editors have objected to the inclusion of the content at issue, which is on its face sensationalist garbage. A single user wishes to restore it, claiming a spurious consensus. That editor, User:Holanthony, has a long history of problematic edits to biographies. See, for example, this ANI discussion [[10]], where Holanthony made similarly spurious complaints about reversion of their improper edits, only to have the complaint WP:BOOMERRANG and the discussion closed with a warning "that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions". Sourcing biographies with tabloid garbage is unacceptable, whether the article subject is living or dead. Supporting an editor who plainly "clearly lack[s] a basic understanding of a number of polices (not limited to just BLP). Including accusations of child molesting against non-notable people in a BLP? When no charges were even brought?" (to quote just one comment in that ANI) is particularly unacceptable for an administrator. Look before you leap. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Bjelleklang.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Bjelleklang. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Bjelleklang. 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)