User talk:Kontoreg

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kontoreg! Thank you for your contributions. I am Trafford09 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Trafford09 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Kirikaeshi. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Edit summaries - reminder

Tip of the day...

Please summarize your work using the Edit summary box

If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help other users keep track of what is happening to a page.

If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 255 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes, rm for remove, ce for copy-edit, etc.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Modern Kendo

G'day,

I see you have an interest in Kendo, which is great, but so far you have added almost no content, but only asked for more citations (even for very standard knowledge, such as the fact that Kendo is practiced in bare feet). Could you perhaps try to actually add something useful? In particular, please refrain from adding "modern" to the Kendo (and related) page without some kind of justification. Kendo is modern, we state that once at the beginning, and that seems sufficient. If you wish to argue that there are two things both called Kendo, one modern and one ancient, then you need to justify that with some evidence. I suggest you bring it up at the talk page first, as last time someone argued this (modern vs traditional) the consensus was that the evidence was underwhelming.

Also, could you (a) add edit summaries and (b) split your edits into smaller chunks so that it is easier for people for follow what is going on. If you continue not to add edit summaries, despite being asked to very clearly, people will view your edits as disruptive. Francis Bond (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have only made two kinds of edits: (i) adding modern all over the place and making broad claims that imply that there is some split between modern kendo and some nebulous traditional kendo. You have given no citations for any of these claims. (ii) adding citation needed tags to, in my opinion, entirely uncontroversial facts. The goal of editing wikipedia is to make it better. If you have some knowledge about Japanese martial arts, then please share it: add some new facts or provide better citations for existing ones. If all you are going to do is push a point-of-view for which you have no evidence, and make articles less readable by sprinkling citation needed tags everywhere, then please stop. From now on, I will just revert your edits without comment unless you add verifiable useful information, add proper edit summaries and discuss the changes somewhere relevant. Francis Bond (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gendai budō. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please heed the good advice of Francis Bond. jmcw (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A productive suggestion

I see the same pattern of trivial 'citation needed' in the Danish Wikipedia [1] [2]

Could I suggest a productive solution? Many of the terms you have been marking as needing citations are in the Wiktionary (for example [3]). A reference to Wiktionary is much more useful than a 'citation needed' tag.

Template:Wiktionary could be a help for adding references. And don't forget to supply edit summaries! jmcw (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing style

Hello Kontoreg.

It's fair to say, isn't it, that your editing style is seen as troublesome to several other editors?

Why would you say that was?

I realise that you have to date shown yourself to be a man of few words - but you have spoken once on English wikipedia - here.

I see that you have made twice as many contributions on Danish wikipedia than on this English one, and 1 Wikicommons edit.

Kontoreg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - pie - global contribs

It's only fair to warn you that if sufficient editors deem your editing disruptive, then one or more may propose a wp:community ban, banning you from Wikipedia. Do you think that a ban might be fair?

Please let us know what you think, if you would. Regards, --Trafford09 (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Trafford: please WP:DONTBITE. Kontoreg has made useful contributions and the issues we are discussing here are usual beginner issues. I feel that talk about bans is a bit harsh at this stage. WP:AGF! jmcw (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have done my best to assume good faith, but on the English Wikipedia, Kontoreg has made no useful contributions that I have seen, only adding spurious "modern"s all over the place, peppering articles with "citation needed" and changing from US to GB spelling. I have seen no new information supported by reliable sources anywhere (but I may have missed some). Francis Bond (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] jmcw (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmcw37. Admittedly the wp:diff you added above looks seemingly helpful (albeit to a non-English reader). I accept the principles you quoted yesterday, of AGF and DONTBITE, but I would argue that both have expired here, sadly.

AGF applies surely up to the point where you've politely pointed out a new editor's perceived fault. It's then reasonable to expect the editor to follow your advice, or at least reply in some way, e.g. with their rationale for continuing their own path. In this case, neither response has been attained - see his latest edit which restored his own edit, again without wp:ES.

DONTBITE applied in 2009, when he joined .en and .da WPs. Since then he has made hundreds of edits, and I wouldn't call him a newbie.

What we have here, IMHO, is an editor who has a wp:POV, which he will peddle as, where & when he wishes, regardless of others' requests. He's not a collaborator, & is not thus ready for the responsibilities that accompany his rights on WP.

Am I being fair? I'm sure I am. We know he can read and write English. What we don't know is that he can be bothered to read his own Talk page. Clearly to date he's shown no will to respond here. Were he to be blocked, he'd have to argue his case to release the block, which may help all concerned I feel.

--Trafford09 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Martial Arts International Federation

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 Martial Arts International Federation, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zen Nihon Sogo Budo Renmei for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zen Nihon Sogo Budo Renmei is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Nihon Sogo Budo Renmei until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negishi Shingorō

I undid your cut/paste move of Negishi Shingoro to Negishi Shingorō as the page should be "moved" to preserve edit history. See wp:moving a page. If you want to request a move (if there is no article or redirect at the target, you can move it yourself) put {{db-move|Negishi Shingoro| *your reason here* }} as the first line of the page where you want the article to go (presumably Negishi Shingorō). Leave the redirect as the second line. An administrator will review your reason and move the page if s/he accepts the reason. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You actually requested that the page be moved back to the old page. I moved the move request (db-move) to Negishi Shingorō so that the move would be from Negishi Shingoro to Negishi Shingorō. You can edit Negishi Shingoro if you would like, but it should stay on that page until it is moved. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent behaviour on the Kendo article

Let me tell you something that, to be fair, I myself have only fairly recently come to understand properly:
When someone reverts something you put into a wikipedia article, you cannot respond by just putting it back (well, unless the revert was clearly vandalism). That is essentially the beginnings of an edit war, and not good wiki behaviour.
What you did was certainly understandable, but nevertheless very inappropriate and disruptive.

If there is a disagreement, it should be discussed, not reverted back and forth. Once the discussion is finished, the article may be edited in accordance with what was concluded in the discussion. To simply revert it back is very inappropriate, as you are insisting on your version, regardless of what anyone else thinks, as if you have some higher authority or are better than the one who reverted your edits, despite you both being no more than individual editors, and thus being equals. Furthermore, you force the article to be to your liking, while being largely safe from getting it reverted again, as that would most certainly put the whole issue into edit war territory, with whoever made the revert, being a guilty party ...which they don't want to be.
Please take care to discuss, rather than revert, in future.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will discuss the changes more on the Kendo talk page. Francis Bond (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kontoreg, please read the pages Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Whatever merit there may be to your viewpoints, your methods are simply not acceptable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall copy what I said in the Kendo talk page, here, just to be absolutely sure you read it: We have already discussed this here, and established consensus. You made your edits, clearly against recently established consensus (with you being involved in the discussion), so naturally I reverted them, pointing out why you were wrong to make them, and that it is very close to edit warring, if not being edit warring, outright. You have chosen to revert it back again, which definitely puts this into the area of edit warring, IMO. Especially as you have been, repeatedly, been warned about this type of behaviour and informed that it goes against policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please cease this behaviour at once and undo your last edit, or I will report this as edit warring. I would consider putting this on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but I rather think that wouldn't be so effective in this case, and reporting this as edit warring seems more appropriate anyway.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, that humility and curtsey are values that are promoted in Kendo.
Please accept those values, and accept that you are merely an individual editor, not above the rest of us editors. Also accept that you are not above the rules of wikipedia. This is not an anarchy. The rules may not be written in stone, but that doesn't mean that one can completely ignore them.
Looking at the rest of your user talk page, I can see that this is far from the first or only time, that you have been in trouble.
Please try to learn the rules. Some of them might be bendable at times, and you may be given some leeway occasionally, but you cannot just completely disregard them.
Wikipedia is a product/process of cooperation. In all social interactions, you need rules, so as to avoid chaos.

I have written my edit war report, ready to post it, reporting you as edit warring. Not much time has gone past, so I have not posted it yet, and I hope I don't have to. I would very much appreciate it if you were to undo your edits yourself, thus meaning that we will not have to go to such measures.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion on the talk page. - Kontoreg (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reported you as edit warring.

The report can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kontoreg_reported_by_User:ZarlanTheGreen_.28Result:_.29 I'm not sure if this is the proper way to inform you, but it should do.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring report has been closed for the moment since you are apparently on vacation. Some of your talk comments suggest that you are planning to edit war to get your version into the article. For example here, where you say "OK boys, the playtime is over..this information will be added to the article..." If you are following a conscious plan to edit war you may be blocked. Please use your diplomatic skills to work something out. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Kendo

You made an edit recently, adding mentions of DNBK and IMAF. That edit was then reverted. You have now simply re-reverted it ...which is not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia. You are quite welcome to try to discuss the matter. In fact, I had already created a topic about it, in the talk page.
You are not, however, welcome to edit war. I remind you that you have been reported for edit warring in the past, which was only dropped because you had disappeared, making it unnecessary (given that you weren't going to cause any further problems).
You have been informed about these types of behaviours, and the fact that it goes against the rules. You should have learned not to do these things. Right now, your actions have not quite gone as far as to be an edit war, proper, but if you continue to cause problems, I will not give you the courtesy of waiting before I report you, as I did before (and this time, I'll not have to look up where/how to report you). You have already been warned, often enough before. If you get into full blown edit warring, you will be reported.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion on the talk page. - Kontoreg (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinbudo

Shinbudo is in a deletion discussion at this time. I imported it and the template it uses to Wikiversity, v:shinbudo. Thanks. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 21:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete the Shinbudo import to Wikiversity, since you don't seem interested in it. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendo/Kenjutsu Martial Art/Martial Way =

Kontoreg: please stop making these pointless changes pushing the non-standard use of these terms. They are not improving wikipedia, and they are wasting other editors time and energy. It's great that you care so much, but you are not adding useful information --- you are continually reverted by consensus, and your current changes make, in my opinion, misleading claims. If you continue, I will ask that you be blocked from editing all pages dealing with martial arts. Francis Bond (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about - just because you want to put the article in your favour. ALL my edits have references. - Kontoreg (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bond isn't trying to put articles in his favour. He tries to make them reflect what they are supposed to say, in accordance to the purpose of Wikipedia and what reliable sources say. He is not the one person who opposes you. Everyone disagrees with you.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious all the members of the International Kendo Federation (FIK) do not want to hear about other federations which organising Kendo. - Kontoreg (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. The Kendo article mentions other federations, where appropriate. There is no federation that you have ever mentioned, that isn't mentioned on the article. Besides, your assumption that all the editors that oppose you, are members of FIK, is ludicrous. It is also an ad hominem (and a bad one at that, as there is no reason why FIK membership would make one reluctant to acknowledge other federations), and a clear assumption of bad faith. One should avoid accusing others of bad faith, but here you are (and always have been) very clear on the issue, so my accusation is quite justified.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the entity discussion on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kendo - Kontoreg (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, full well, that I have. To ask me to read it, is thus not an honest answer. Especially as the contents confirm every word I said.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two person kata photograph on Iaido page

Kontoreg: please read and respond to the comment on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iaido regarding your removal of a photograph illustrating two person kata from an article on Iaido. 24.114.82.23 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read my answer. - Kontoreg (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like "Ignore all rules"

You plaster "Ignore all rules" on this talk page, but I am worried that you might not understand the principle of "ignore all rules", here on wikipedia. I would advise you to read What "Ignore all rules" does not mean and The rules are principles#Ignore all rules ...and indeed the rest of Wikipedia:The rules are principles.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...I can understand that you do not like the banner on my talk page... - Kontoreg (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with the banner, nor with WP:Ignore all rules. What I am troubled by, is that I think that you do not understand that WP:Ignore all rules means that you should ignore the letter of the rules, only to get closer to the spirit of rules. WP:Ignore all rules is not a blanket excuse for ignoring the rules. To quote from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.

You have never shown any respect for consensus. You generally don't care about rules, as long as you change wikipedia in accordance to your own, personal, opinions. Thus seem to embrace "Ignore all rules", at face value, rather than understanding what it really means.

I have no trouble with your banner, I merely fear that you haven't the slightest idea what it means.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Aikido is sport

See the talk page for aikido. - Kontoreg (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogu vs Kendogu

Reverting and re-reverting all over the place, is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia ...as you've been told multiple times. Try to discuss the matter in the talk page (where I have created a section for this issue), instead of edit warring ...and, as I'm sure you've been told, edit summaries don't count as "discussion". Edit summaries are good, but it has to be discussion in the talk page, for it to count as discussion.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZarlanTheGreen - my bodyfriend, see the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kendo#Bogu_vs_Kendogu - Kontoreg (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a bodyfriend? That sounds creepy. Also, please do not refer me to a talk page section that I myself created. I already pay attention to it. Either way, the kendo talk page is made for discussion the content of the kendo article, not your edit warring behaviour.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear comrade, who has created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kendo#Bogu_vs_Kendogu ? - Kontoreg (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese martial arts

See the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_martial_arts - Kontoreg (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per the consensus at the Administrators' Noticeboard you are topic banned form editing articles and talkpages relating to martial arts, broadly construed. You may appeal this ban in six months' time, either at the Administrators' Noticeboard or by contacting the Arbitration Committee. Failure to abide by the topic ban will result in your account being blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violating your topic ban on martial arts articles, as you did at Kendo. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand why this contribution is not useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kendo&oldid=582208894&diff=prev My contribution was an information about the historical evolution of kendo. - Kontoreg (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful or not, you are prohibited from making edits to that page, or to any other pages relating to martial arts. Any edits you do make will be reverted, regardless of their merit. If other editors deem your additions useful, they are free to add the information themselves; you, however, may not. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kontoreg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kontoreg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]