User talk:Brocach

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


Brocach, I don't know you from Adam, but I'm prompted to reach out with a gesture of support. I see from ANI that your treatment there is a very typical example of an editor threatened with disciplinary action after making accurate, good-faith edits. My perception is that these disputes are invariably tilted towards accusers. Your detailed defense was dismissed as TL:DR; your record was examined for its adherence to contradictory, wikipedia policy impossible to satisfy; you're assigned bad motives and casual insults; any sharpness in your responses is interpreted as disruptive; and now that you've been mud-splattered you're one false move from a block or ban. It's a shameful way to treat a good volunteer. I want you to know I see the glaring unfairness here, and I encourage you to stay productive and engaged as an editor. all best --Lockley (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That is very heartening. Thank you, Lockley. Brocach (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your input at House of Prayer, Achill. RashersTierney (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what it is like to be besieged by obsessives. Brocach (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


BoNM - Ireland Hires.png The Ireland Barnstar of National Merit
For your stellar work in maintaining the accuracy and integrity of GAA & Ireland related articles. Finnegas (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

GRMMA! Brocach (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Jean-Bédel Bokassa[edit]

Guinness.jpg You deserve a pint for your comment here.
Skinsmoke (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Northern Irish counties[edit]

The NI county ledes have been argued over in the past and an agreement in the form of a stop-gap measure was implemented that has remained stable for around 3 years with no trouble despite the fact NI county ledes give more mention to the 32 counties than the RoI counties do (which is none). You would be wise to seek a consensus for any changes to their format or maybe even wiser to just stop pushing your agenda. Your extra addition in regards to their local government status is also redundant seeing as "is one of six counties that form Northern Ireland" - wikilinks to an article that makes it clear in its own lede! Mabuska (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with Brocach and think it's reasonable to state in the lead that the county is no longer used for governmental administrative purposes. That seems quite relevant. The 32 traditional counties of Ireland (if that even means anything anymore) is slightly vaguer in my mind. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Wonders never cease... but having just spent a few days working on GAA programmes, I can assure you that in some quarters Ireland is still a country where the 32 counties mean something. Brocach (talk)
They're called "fantastists". Jon C. 16:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A new word for me. We live and learn. Brocach (talk)
Maybe it could be mentioned outside of the first paragraph of the lede seeing as the intros have been stable for around 3 years and should remain as they are. Sourced and better detailing of their current usage would be required however. Yet doing this for all Irish counties would be quite repetative, no? Hence why maybe it should be left to the actual counties of pages. Mention of the traditional 32 counties is relevant in terms of historical and non-governmental context: ie the GAA and Orange Order. I note however that Brocachs changes once again don't seem to make it across the border?! Mabuska (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I started with the six because the same text could readily be applied there; in the rest of the island many counties retain administrative functions so more nuanced wording is needed. Having been stable for three years (not sure that this is so in every case) is not in itself a reason to stop improving a lede, and I am still mystified as to why a factual, neutrally-worded edit counts in Mabuska's eyes as "pushing an agenda"; perhaps he/she could explain? Brocach (talk)

───────────────────────── More nuanced? Hardly. Your rearranging of the lede was what that was in regards to. Also note how in my previous comment I suggested putting the former stuff in a subsequent paragraph. Thats called coming around to seeing how to include your addition that would keep the intro, aka the 1st paragraph stable. A more indepth explaining on the past and current usage can then be added to a "History" section to beef the articles up a bit. That would do more to improve the article and should really sort the issue out. That means I'm saying go ahead and stick the former stuff back into the ledes but in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. I'll add historical stuff to the article body later. Mabuska (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastists. They live in a fantasty world. (No, it was a typo. Still, my point remains – yer a Nordie, get over it.) Agree with Mabuska that NI is the primary topic here; they're counties of Northern Ireland specifically and Ireland more generally. Jon C. 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
They are/were also counties within the UK... Mabuska (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

GAA page-move list[edit]

It's (whew) done :-). Happy St. Patrick's Day and all the best, Miniapolis 13:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day[edit]

St. Thomas's GAA are competing in the All Ireland this Sunday. Would you be able to add crest and colours before then. It would be greatly appreciated Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Far from perfect but had a go. Ádh mór. Brocach (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


Hey, what is your problem with Andres Roemer page? --Werther mx (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

El problema no es el mío. Es de los que no entienden las políticas de Wikipedia en cuanto a biografía: no es un foro para (auto)promoción sino un lugar donde se hallan datos objetivos y verificables sobre indivíduos. Brocach (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Esto no es autopromoción, en español se puede esto y más. Los datos son objetivos y verificables, pero ni siquiera dejas que termine de editar.--Werther mx (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
¿Cuál según tú no es dato confiable? Lo estoy traduciendo del español Por favor déjame trabajar... --Werther mx (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
El mero hecho que parece así en otro idioma no justifica la (re)creación acá de un artículo que no toma en cuenta ni el estilo normal de Wikipedia ni las políticas expresadas en WP:BLP. P. ej. lo consideres normal listar bajo "Occupation" lo siguiente - "Author, Entrepreneur, Creative, Political Scientist, Television producer, promoter of cultural affairs, playwright, professor, philantropist, intellectual."? En cualquier otro artículo biográfico encuentres una o dos palabras. Brocach (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Pues yo no tengo la culpa que el PhD. Andres Roemer tenga mil actividades y ocupaciones, ¿eso a ti qué? El problema es que no vives en México y no has visto todo lo que hace, mejor infórmate: Y ¿dónde quedó la hermandad entre wikipedias? ¿eso te vale? --Werther mx (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland[edit]

After a period of calm, Laurel Lodged has gone on the offensive creating Category:Sportspeople from South Dublin (county) and Category:Sportspeople from Fingal. I think its important that we secure a consensus on Wikiproject Ireland that Irish categories use the traditional 32 counties, to prevent this from happening again. Finnegas (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. More Wikipedia:Canvassing. What are we to do? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "we" could refrain from tendentious edits. Brocach (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note The topic under review here is now the subject of a central discussion here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank You for withdrawing your vote to centeralise the discussion @ WikiProject Ireland. Finnegas (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you guys considered entering the synchronised swimming team for the next Olympics? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you thought about synchronised drowning? Brocach (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, just a note to let you know that is back & editing. Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing my best with the articles that User:MFIreland continues to work on, but contributions by you, User:Guliolopez, User:Rivertorch and others have been very helpful. MFIreland clearly knows a bit about his topics; he could make a useful contribution if he understood how this venture works, and it is a pity that he hasn't the common sense to come clean, apologise, seek removal of the block and resume editing while abiding by the rules. As an unqualified psychologist I have him down as an Irish Army reservist frustrated by non-promotion and trouser-related disappointments. Brocach (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I know you are frustrated (the guy really pee-ed me off last year when this first started), but I just want to make 2 points:
  1. You asked in an edit "why bother engaging with a sock?". I engage because it would be hypocritical to demand that other users (whoever they are) engage in CON and avoid editwars when I am not following that line myself.
  2. In the above (and this edit) you seem to have taken the position to revert the guy no matter what. You acknowledge that some of his edits have merit. I saw this edit and decided it was one those "good edit"s. You saw it and reverted because it was a "bad editor". If the guy is ever going to come back from the dark-side, then we have to acknowledge the good.
I am far from suggesting some kind of Zen/Jedi approach to DDE, but we need to be careful about friendly fire. Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
His edits are likely to be routinely reverted while the block remains. His behaviour is so consistently unreasonable that I haven't, and won't always, take the time to sort out the wheat from the chaff. However I have made some further edits at that page. Brocach (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
He's back at it, deleting improvements and reinstating unsourced or otherwise inferior versions. I will revert at will and encourage you and others to do likewise, this man does not listen. Brocach (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't elaborated at the SPI because it seemed this editor was finally beginning to engage. I'm pretty sure there is at least one registered account and another IP that could be added (without delving very deeply). I have always thought they could be a valuable asset to the project, but editors, no matter how certain of their 'correctness', should explain their position when asked and be otherwise prepared to engage constructively. That, surely, is not a big ask. It isn't my wish to 'close them down'. I would be the first to support the lifting of MFIreland's block if they asked, and were to edit using only that account. RashersTierney (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a good cop/bad cop approach would yield some results. But I tend to the view that a blocked, sockpuppeting editor should expect anything they edit to be reverted. Those of you who think that yet another chance should be given, despite the repetition of the offending behaviour again and again, can try that approach. I will certainly revert on sight any edits by him that remove improving material, or that are completely explained. Brocach (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi I saw where you undid some sockpuppetry on 3rd Infantry Battalion (Ireland) where the sockpuppet changed the unit from 3rd to 3 Bn, however I believe that in the Irish DF he/she is correct. Adding suffixes to unit names is incorrect, it may be widely ignored/forgotten about but there is some merit in using the correct names.Bakaattack (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Having looked both at official sources and at media coverage, it seems to me that the ordinals (3rd, 56th etc.) are frequently used, even in military sources, but that strictly speaking the numeral (3, 56) is the official form. I think the articles could go with the ordinal at first mention, and thereafter abbreviate; see 56th Reserve Infantry Battalion (Ireland), given after first mention as 56 Bn. Brocach (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Protestant Coalition[edit]

Good work for creating such a well sourced article on the latest political "party" so quickly.Although I can't see this motley crew sticking round for too long, soon I suspect we will be changing the present to past tense! DColt (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We aim to please. Brocach (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Their cause might of been helped had they not sectarianised their message with their name. That's one way to alienate potential voters. Mabuska (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the unfortunate choice of name most likely cost them the votes of thousands of Papists who would otherwise have been won over by their constructive manifesto and charming, non-fascist leaders. Brocach (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Have successfully nominated Protestant Coalition for DYK [1].Finnegas (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it appears my earlier prediction was correct.According to today's Irish News these political titans are leaving the stage.DColt (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Am bearing up as well as could be expected. Brocach (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

IFBB etc[edit]

Hi Brocach

you may be interested in Talk:Bodybuilding#Contests and associations. It's not a particular area of interest for me, and possibly not for you either, but I guess from some of your comments at Talk:Robby Robinson (bodybuilder) that you've done some research on the topic. The benefit of that research would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Andrewa, I know no more about this "sport" than I needed to find out in order to tidy up the RR piece. Nothing that I read about it inclined me to become any more of an expert. Brocach (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Understood! Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaelic names[edit]

Better provide sources for those Gaelic names otherwise they are viable for deletion for violating the IMoS in regards to the use of Gaelic names. Also your being quite pedantic about the birth places. Mabuska (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also it seems quite odd how rather than adding a {{cn}} tag to the birthplaces you go straight out and remove then despite the fact there are in some cases many unsourced things in those articles that you've ignored. Anti-Londonderry prejudice again Brocach? In fact you could simply just change the articles to state "from" instead. Why have you not? Mabuska (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The original and authentic Irish-language versions of GAA players' names are the names with which they are officially registered as GAA players. It is not possible to violate IMoS by giving the names as Gaeilge of GAA players who by definition use the |Irish version of their name (if one exists): it is, in fact, a requirement of IMoS that the Irish name, even if less used, be in the first sentence. For people whose notability relates to their achievements as members of the GAA, separate sources could more credibly be demanded for the Anglicised versions of their names, so stop challenging the Irish names.
As for birthplaces: either a Derry GAA player was born in a hamlet, village, town or farm without maternity facilities, or they were born in one of the four maternity hospitals in which almost all Derry people still active in the GAA were born. I know where those four places are, being a Derryman, but I don't know in every case who was born where. If there is a source saying that someone was born in a particular place that's fine. I have no problem with people being listed as "from" X, and have never changed that, if they merely happened to be born in Y because that's where the maternity facility was, but were brought up in X. Brocach (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
And for an editor with such an interest in Derry GAA articles, how come it took me to update the senior team managers list seeing as the present manager in it had stepped down last year! Mabuska (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Living now in Armagh and being more than a bit involved with Armagh GAA, I do not follow Derry affairs as closely as I would if I lived there, and although I try to keep myself up to date, I do not dash to Wikipedia to input every change that occurs in Derry. I rely on other Gaelic sports enthusiasts like yourself to do that. As you probably have noticed, I edit extensively on GAA matters across many counties. So long as we all work together in a collaborative and respectful way, we can improve this encyclopaedia together, and it doesn't matter who says what as long as the overall quality and reliability is maintained. I am deleting your latest post here since it doesn't meet those criteria. If you want to engage with me, stop using insulting and aggressive language. I'm ready to listen if you can remain civil. Brocach (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All Saints GAC[edit]

Well done for your work on this article. I have nominated it for DYK [2] Feel free to add alternative hook Finnegas (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In response[edit]

In response to your reply: if you dropped your blatant anti-Londonderry prejudice from your editing, and formulated factual and logical reasons for most of your opinions, rather than endlessly repeating poorly thought out arguments that shows your lack of historical knowledge, as well drop your edit-warring nature that your now associated with, then maybe I could engage with you on a more mature way. Until that day... Mabuska (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also add in the poor edit summaries you leave which many a time are false or misleading. Mabuska (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to engage with me in a more mature way. Just be yourself. Brocach (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Protestant Coalition[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All Saints GAC[edit]

Congrats. The article is much better now. However, as you will see from your watchlist I did delete some unsourced POV text, and added some why tags. I am sure you'll restore the text with reliable sourcing. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for All Saints GAC[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


This editor was site banned two years ago. Banning is a very different situation from blocking, even for an indefinite period. All edits from a site banned editor (unless making contact to have their ban appealed), can be removed on sight, whether good, bad or indifferent. RashersTierney (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Grand, glad to hear it. I didn't know the history of this bollix but I recognised the bollix as a bollix. Brocach (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Killeavy St Moninna's GAC, Brocach!

Wikipedia editor Jamesmcmahon0 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating the article, keep working o it to improve it's content, accuracy and reliability.

To reply, leave a comment on Jamesmcmahon0's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


According to [3] it's "Naomh Trea Baile Mhic Uiginn CLG" not "CLG Naomh Trea Baile Mhic Uiginn". Considering that's at least two Gaelic clubs that disagree with your view of what they are called, maybe you should give it a rest. Mabuska (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Been away for a while so just seeing this now. This is a non-negotiable grammar issue; "Naomh Trea Baile Mhic Uiginn CLG" is the exact equivalent of "Football Club Manchester United". It's wrong, even if it's on two or more GFC websites. Brocach (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It is original research. Just to point out I saw a source that has Slaghneills with CLG at the end of the name as well. Are all these clubs wrong or maybe is it you? If several clubs say their name is such a way then who are you to overrule them without any evidence that says they have it otherwise? Mabuska (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand why using the long-settled grammatical rules of a particular language could possibly count as original research. The grammar of the Irish language always and everywhere demands that, in phrases describing a thing that is located in a place, or a thing that is named after a real or mythical person, the thing gets named first followed by the descriptive element. Thus "Armagh Cinema" is rendered as "Cinema of Armagh" (Amharclann Ard Mhacha), "St George's Church" can only be given as "Church of St George" (Eaglais N. Sheoirse) and so on, hence "CLG Naomh Trea" rather than nonsensical forms such as "Naomh Trea CLG". It is for those proposing novel forms outside the rules of grammar to provide some authority. Brocach (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether your right or not, Wikipedia works with sources and so far I've found quite a few official club websites that stick the CLG in the Irish form of their name at the end of it and none so far with it at the front. You may very well be correct but I've seen no proof of these clubs using the "gramatically correct" form. Mabuska (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you really saying - I've read it a few times but can't take it in - that you haven't found any pages that use the correct form "CLG XXX"? Shall I take you by the hand and lead you through the GAA cyberspace? Brocach (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

This applies to your recent edit at Shane O'Neill's GAC as you are still pushing your flawed and disruptive POV in regards to removing Northern Ireland from the intros of articles on places/teams etc. and in regards to you acting as if you know the Irish names of clubs better than the actual club does even when it is cited. Also add in your complete failure everytime to provide any sources to back up your claims that these clubs spell their Irish names the way you say they do. Shane O'Neill's own website clearly states Cumann as does the club badge. Not CLG. Please cease and desist these disruptive edits. Mabuska (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yay! You finally found a source after all this time to back yourself up. Pity the clubs website still contradicts this and I'd say the club knows its name better. No reason why both can't be added though. Mabuska (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"Cumann" as used in the club website is, for anyone familiar with GAA club sites, an abbreviation of "Cumann Lúthchleas Gael". This is the Irish for Gaelic Athletic Club. "Cumann" is the Irish for "Club". This particular club is a Gaelic Athletic Club. It is registered with Armagh GAA as a Gaelic Athletic Club, "Cumann Lúthchleas Gael", and is subordinate to the Armagh County Board of the GAA. Armagh GAA is subordinate to the Ulster Council, Ulster GAA. The cited source from Ulster Council - two levels of governance above the club - shows that the proper name of the club is Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Sheáin Úi Néill. Do you have any higher authority? Brocach (talk)

Laurel Lodged[edit]

I'm having some issues with Laurel Lodged again. She refuses to discuss on the talk page and continues to revert. Can you help me here? I'm trying to stop her POV pushing at Category Roman Catholic church. Thank you for your time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What's this "she" business? What's this illegal canvassing? I thought the only one with a penchant for pushing peculiar Roman Catholic POV was yourself. Since when did Brocach become an authority on Church matters? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Kennedy International Piping Festival[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on William Kennedy International Piping Festival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Brocach. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Brocach. 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)