User talk:Jeancey

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

Your thoughts are requested[edit]

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for your little edits to Aravella Simotas. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD of Apple tree farm[edit]

Hey, Jeancey! I've declined the G11 tag you put on this article. It doesn't seem to be promoting anything in particular, near as I can tell, and the speedy deletion criteria are meant to be pretty narrow in scope. I do agree that something needs to be done about it: I considered A1, which is insufficient context to identify subject, or G1, which is patent nonsense, but I don't think either of those apply, either. A1 is only for very short articles, and it's not quite nonsense in the sense of word salad or anything like that, so I wouldn't really do G1, either. Instead, I've PRODded it, which is generally what I do if there's something that needs deletion but doesn't fit any of the CSD criteria. Thanks! Writ Keeper 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your notification:- Edit War.[edit]

I have attempted numerous times to reach consensus on this issue but the other parties involved have refused to reply to my criticisms. I will however cease editing for now and pursue the problem by the appropriate means. In my opinion the other editors on this page are the ones guilty of edit warring as they are undoing my edits without notifying me, and are also breaking NPOV in their article.

-Django  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jeancey. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 02:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (Jethro B)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jeancey. You have new messages at Jethro B's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jethro B 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Images on the Iran-Iraq War article[edit]

I was checking out the sources for he images of the article when I realized that most of them come from this site: [1]. Now I can't read Persian, but I can tell the site is mostly about the Iran-Iraq War. What I can't find is where it says on the site that the owner has released the photos under a usable license. Therefore, I'm not even sure if Wp is allowed to use them. Can you shine some light on this issue? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I noticed that on the bottom of a page on the site, [2] it says this:

«کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند»

I'm guessing every photo on that site is released under the GFDL license?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Something very interesting happened. I found images on this site: [3] and sent an email to them about the copyright status of the images. This is their response:

"Dear Mr. Jimmy,

Thank you so much for your attention. It is a great honor.

Actually the rest of the pics are not ours too and we found it in other Persian sites. Therefore we do not have any particular rights regarding them. You may use them as you like.

With Best Regards

Firouzeh Mirrazavi

Deputy Editor

Iran Review


How do you interpret this? Are those images usable? I read the site's copyright terms and it seems like they only use free images.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I did a Google images reverse search, and the earliest posting of the images are from Wiki sites or forums, blogs or some other sites. A lot of the images of the Iran-Iraq War found on the internet is just everywhere, making the original owner impossible to find. I'm not sure what to do in that case. I guess we'll just have to rely on the one site we know for sure have free images. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Libya factional fighting article[edit]

Hi, I´ve been thinking about this for a while and would like to discuss this with you. As you surely know, article is anything but WP:NOTNEWS so I´d like to talk over these few points

1, Is it really necessary and shouldn´t it be merged with Aftermath of the Libyan civil war article? Outside of wikipedia I never saw one article which would refer to events in Libya in past year as separate event from the Aftermath in general. Also see point 2

2, We have too many informations and article is now archive of any news regarding Libya in past year. We should identify relevant major events such as fighting in Kufra and Bani Walid and separate it from various shoot-outs which lasted for few hours without any real effect on future events. What should we keep and what should we remove per NOTNEWS? Also if we manage to shorten article to sufficient length won´t it be better to merge per point 1?

Thanks for your opinion. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jeancey. You have new messages at Talk:2011–2012 Egyptian revolution.
Message added 14:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you comment on this? FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The length of the Gaddafi article[edit]

Thank you for your kind words regarding my additions Jeancey. I concur with the need to keep things over at the Muammar Gaddafi article as concise as possible, but at the same time we must accept that Gaddafi was a pretty major figure in world history, who accomplished a lot in his life, and so the article is inevitably going to have to be quite a long one (see for a comparison the Fidel Castro page). Just giving a brief examination through the article as it stands, I think the best place to cut down this article is in the volumnous sections which deal with his foreign relations, the section on the economy (which can be reintegrated into other parts of the text, and the section on the transliteration of Gaddafi's name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Certainly, I would like to see the economy section expunged, because it isn't directly related to Gaddafi himself as an individual. The odd piece of information could be reincorporated elsewhere of course. I shall continue to work on this article over the coming months using the Bruce St. John and Kawcynski texts (and perhaps some others), and I would be more than happy for you to keep an eye on the page and tidy it up here and then, as you see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I would advise that the Pacification of Libya be taken more seriously by WikiProject Africa and its subsection on Libya[edit]

You gave the article on the Pacification of Libya a "low-importance" stance. I think that a medium-level of importance would be appropriate given that it was a major event in Libya's modern history. First of all, it was part of an ongoing serious rebellion by indigenous Libyans to colonial rule, and a quarter of the population of the region of Cyrenaica were killed in the conflict as a result of an aggressive campaign by Fascist Italy against the rebellion. Second, the Pacification of Libya and the resistance by Omar Mukhtar is considered in Libya to be a major part of their history. Third, the Italian government in 2008 officially apologized and initiated financial compensation to Libya for the damages incurred by Italian colonial atrocities committed against Libya - the Pacification of Libya was what the issue was mainly about. As I said, it was a major episode of colonial conflict in Libya and Northern Africa that has had political ramifications into the 2000s, thus I believe that medium-level importance would be more appropriate than low-level importance.--R-41 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts to bring Chadian–Libyan conflict to Good Article status! Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


I really can't stand this guy. He is totally ignoring our discussion and claiming that the "list of propaganda slogans" page (which is under a delete template) is suitable enough. Sopher99 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Libyan civil war[edit]

Thats all very good, but in history the facts aint something to discuss, but to prove. As I said, even the so-called "rebels" recognize the killing of Muammar Gaddafi and his son Mutassim. In the case of Muammar, some "rebels" even discuss wich one had killed him. Not to mention the videos showing Muammar & Mutassim after and before their executions. Please, leave ideology apart and dont falsify history.

PD. Leaving apart ideology, I have done the same with General Younis, as he was also executed after being detained, not killed in action.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
What? You're saying that reaching a theoric consensus (wich I guess could probably never reach, by something as simple as some users denying credibility to the sources) is more important than what the sources said? Are you aware that this an encyclopedia?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Dont make me laugh with that reference to the so-called "rebels". May I had to talk about your "Libyan" flag? Dont try to fool me, at least Im not trying to act as I if I am neutral when clearly I am not.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, as you keep reverting it, I had to add the POV banner, at least unless a discussion was made about it. Are you going to delete it also? Hope not, but I have seen it almost everything lately in WP...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox[edit]

Edit war has erupted at the Syrian civil war article again. Help?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A few editors added Israel to the infobox without any consensus whatsoever. This is completely against Wikipedia policies. Can you please remove it? I think I might have already used my revert for the day. (The page is now subject to sanctions).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's happening again.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre[edit]

Good Article Recruitment - Completion Award.png
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "civil war"[edit]

Hey, can you comment on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 protests in Turkey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 protests in Turkey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are reliable sources. My twitter account isn't of course. But US presidents twitter account certainly is. Please see Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE. Also you have removed sources from my commented out section which I find very odd when I also complain about the sourcing. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they are only reliable sources under certain circumstances, in fact, only when they are referencing themselves or their own activities. This means a tweet from the president confirming his birthday is okay, but a tweet from the president about his opponent is not okay as a source for that fact about his opponent. The way that they are used in this article is the latter. Also, most of the twitter and facebook sources listed are not confirmed by either twitter or facebook as official accounts, and so cannot be used in any way, shape or form. Jeancey (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is from the page you linked. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The sources in this article are being used as sources of information about the protests, not the posters of said information. Also they need to be official accounts, which means confirmed by twitter or facebook, which these are not. I ask you to remove this information as I feel that if I removed it, this would turn into an edit war. I am also going to ask two editors to take a look at the article and weigh in. One of these editors has often been on my side of debates in the past and the other has often been opposed to me in the past. I feel they will both be able to comment on the article in a professional and neutral manner. Would this be okay with you? Jeancey (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Twitter, Facebook and YouTube links I care about are used as sources to document the opinions of the relevant people. The video of Noam Chomsky on youtube for instance would be fine as a source. If any one of the are not the official accounts for the individuals feel free to remove them but this really should be handled on a case by case basis.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I had originally removed that section entirely. Everything outside of the prominent people section (especially the use of facebook pictures as sources) needs to be removed, as none of the accounts are confirmed accounts. I checked. Jeancey (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That is fine. I just wasn't sure if you were trying to remove all of them. Other sources (aside from 1) were commented out too. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
One big issue is that even while commented out, the information still has to be loaded. At the current size of the article, it takes a significant time to load on many older computers and on mobile devices. You can read more on the at the article size page. There are generally two rules to follow: Readable prose size (which commenting it out covers) and browser-page size, which is the total size of the article that needs to be loaded. In this case, I believe that both are excessively long. In terms of readable prose size, the article is well over the recommended limit of 100k. At its current size, the article would take around two hours to read at an average rate. In general, when an article gets to 50k, it should start replacing sections with brief summaries of the topic. In this case, I was intending to remove sections which weren't really needed at all in order to reduce the overall size of the article.
The browser-page size is the size seen on the history page in terms of bytes, currently around 210k. The general rule of thumb is that no article should really be above 200k, if at all possible. Like I said before, I believe this article only needs to be around 100k browser-page size. Most of the information here, while interesting, serves no encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive source for anything, nor is it meant to be. It is supposed to give the reader an overview of the topic. Currently the article goes well beyond an overview. Thus, while the information might be good in an exhaustive research paper on the topic, it is not fit for wikipedia. Jeancey (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
After commenting out of those sections, the readable prose size is more manageable, but still over 50k. We also should still deal with the browser-page size issue. Jeancey (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that size is an issue but breakaway articles is the way to go. That is the only way we can reduce size without compromising on content. Commented out content aren't loaded. Check the HTML source of the article and you will see that the commented out part isn't part of the html output. Therefore I cannot see how article size applies. I did not add the list of forums, I however converted it to a table so that it wasn't a long list. Notability-wise the forums were hailed as more important than the standing man protests. That is one source and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of course but given the potential we shouldn't just eliminate the information. What we need is reliable sources to establish the table and this isn't easy.
On a side note, I sincerely hope my actions aren't discouraging you from making further edits to the article. I fundamentally agree with you but disagree with the execution. I am very pleased that more people like you are showing interest in the article.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You aren't discouraging me. I just have been super busy and haven't had time to seriously take another look at the article. Jeancey (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC[edit]

  • As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg
Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days!

In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.

At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg
Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!

If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!

If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive[edit]

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

  • This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
  • Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
  • The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
  • An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!


--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive[edit]

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive[edit]

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup[edit]

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup
Symbol support vote.svg

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jeancey. 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)