Jump to content

User talk:Nick Levine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TVS Changes

[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your message. The Ip user is correct in nearly all the points on TVS, I still have big doubts it was October 89. A number of points on many of the other pages he change are also partly correct BUT the user is ALSO incorrect at the same time on other pages. The main problem is half of the changes he's makes are correct, while at the same time other half are not correct! --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was making changes at random. So bad reverts got reverted in the process. The whole thing was a crazy tangle. I suspect that a few other IP rampages may the same human, am keeping an eye on this. Cheers, Nick Levine (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Central Changes

[edit]

Hi again, I have taken a look at the changes which were done by the IP and nearly all are correct, I have made some minor edits where there are wrong. I hope this helps --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which IP? 109.154.85.26 from the other day, or 109.158.62.134 -- same geographical area -- which is at it right now? Undoubtedly the same person... Nick Levine (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi its "109.158.62.134" who is at it right now. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So 109.154.85.26 has been blocked ("disruptive editing") and (all?) their changes reverted. I guess whoever's been doing this will be back, at some other IP, soon. My problem is that reviewing 50 of what feels to me to be random undos, to sort wheat from chaff, is very time-consuming. When I tried it, given so many related articles were being vandalised at the same time, it was hard to get verifications of these obscure factoids from within WP. Thougts? Nick Levine (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all his changes have been reverted, well ITV central has not. I can understand yours points etc including it being time consuming, I only delt with a few of the pages which I had better knowledge about. I do agree some of his changes do seem to be wrong but maybe if few other people who deal with the other pages take a look at them them maybe we could spread the workload to double check everything. If thats not possible then I believe fast undoing of 50 odd pages is the only course of action alas. --Crazyseiko (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See next section for a list of IPs which I believe are linked to this run of vandalism. I started this list just by checking the history of one page (ITV Central) over the last four months, but will continue adding to it as I come across more. They all end up getting blocked (in some cases more than once).
I suspect that if I go back further or check the other pages that these IPs have touched, then I can continue to flesh this list out further.
Do people agree that it's the same pattern every time? What's the cure? Nick Levine (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITV vandal

[edit]

For want of a better name, this is what I'm calling the (assumed) single person behind a current (since 2013-10-13) stream of disruptive edits which I've been watching. The pattern is: many small fiddly (hence: hard to verify) changes in a very short period, nasty tangled mess of good and bad changes, lots of page jumping but almost all edits are on pages connected with UK independent television channels and programmes, edit summaries blatantly broken, IP gets blocked but edit pattern resurfaces at another IP shortly after. There's some pattern in the IP addresses themeselves: all but one trace back to btcentralplus.com.

In this section I'm building up a date-ordered list of the IPs they've used and a summary of what they did, along with typical edit summary, the admin's block reasons where given, and expiry date of most recent block. Discussion elsewhere (currently in the section above).

Summary: there appear to have been two sets of disruptive edits at work here. The first is historical, up to 2013-10-12, with one-word edit summaries and the subject of this discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. The second is current: it started on 2013-10-13, with edit summaries like Undid revision 586100358 by Nick Levine (note that the revision number doesn't change here).

  • 109.154.83.250 -- 343 edits over week to 2013-08-31, blocked twice for disruptive editing
  • 109.154.90.41 -- 61 edits in under 3 hours, 2013-09-07, random words as summaries, obvious troll
  • 86.167.6.190 -- 162 edits over 8 hours, 2013-09-14, random words as summaries, disruptive editing
  • 109.149.99.48 -- 175 edits over 13 hours, 2013-09-21, fixed, disruptive editing (making numerous changes to factual data without citing sources)
  • 86.146.222.7 -- 62 edits over 11 hours, 2013-09-22, fixed, block evasion (date change vandal; see 109.154.83.250 and others)
  • 86.151.229.75 -- 225 edits over 22 hours, 2013-09-27, Fixed, block evasion (see 109.154.83.250 and others)
  • 109.155.170.74 -- 4 edits on 2013-10-05, Fixed, block evasion: 86.151.229.75
  • 109.155.171.251 -- 100 edits over 6 hours, on 2013-10-06, Fixed, block evasion (see 109.154.83.250 and others)
  • 86.140.5.30 -- 180 edits on 2013-10-13, 2013-10-19, 2013-11-02, Undid revision 579909695 by 86.140.5.30 and Restored, blocked three times, Long-term pattern of vandalism, 2013-12-02
  • 109.155.164.78 -- 30 edits over 3 hours, 2013-11-16, Restored, 2013-11-14
  • 86.168.205.226 -- 100 edits over a day, 2013-11-23, Undid revision 583137604 by My name is not dave, edit-warring, 2013-11-25
  • 86.159.20.231 -- 92 edits over 2 days, 2013-12-02, Undid revision 583137644 by My name is not dave , disruptive editing, 2013-12-03
  • 86.143.56.24 -- 62 edits over 21 hours, 2013-12-07, Undid revision 583975440 by Crazyseiko, disruptive editing, 2013-12-09
  • 109.155.176.75 43 edits over 15 hours, 2013-12-08, Undid revision 583137081 by My name is not dave, amazingly this one not blocked (but: all their edits reverted, by 86.133.108.36)
  • 109.154.85.26 -- 61 edits over 9 hours on 2013-12-14, 23 over 4 hours on 2013-12-16, 63 over 6 hours on 2013-12-23), Undid revision 586100358 by Nick Levine , blocked three times, 2014-01-23T16:52:42
  • 109.158.62.134 -- 61 edits over 16 hours, 2013-12-27, Undid revision 586100358 by Nick Levine, disruptive editing, 2014-01-27T14:15:08
  • 86.161.184.125 -- 59 edits over 8 hours, 2014-01-11, Undid revision 586100358 by Nick Levine (and others). Plus 10 more edits on 2014-01-18, within a couple of hours of last 7-day block expiring, 2014-04-19T09:11:50
  • 109.150.136.222 -- 61 edits over 8 hours, 2014-01-25, Undid revision 586100358 by Nick Levine, Long-term pattern of vandalism: from various IP addresses, 2014-02-25T22:51:06
  • 89.243.172.104 (Opal Telecom DSL) -- 5 edits in 10 minutes, 2014-01-27, There, stopped before any action taken
  • 78.151.217.224 (Opal Telecom DSL) -- 4 edits in as many minutes, 2014-02-03, That should do it, stopped before any action taken
  • 109.146.98.207 -- 7 edits over two hours, 2014-02-08, Undid revision 583137644 by My name is not dave, change summaries broken but edits themselves might not be, Long-term pattern of vandalism: from various IP addresses, 2014-02-25T22:51:06
  • 86.183.136.111 -- 17 edits over 2 hours, 2014-02-15, Undid revision 592400979 by ElHef (talk), Disruptive editing: known vandal, 2014-03-15T15:23:26
  • 86.129.237.165 -- 38 edits over seven hours, 2014-03-01, Undid revision 597712869 by Tbhotch, Disruptive editing, 2014-03-03T01:44:11
  • 86.166.198.92 -- 2 edits, 2014-03-08, Undid revision 597713455 by Tbhotch, Long-term pattern of vandalism: from various IP addresses, 2014-04-08T14:55:08
  • 92.26.248.177 -- 2 edits, 2014-03-10, There, Long-term pattern of vandalism: from various IP addresses, 2014-04-10T13:29:56
  • 92.26.249.162 -- 4 edits, 2014-04-07, Undid revision 597713711 by Tbhotch, not blocked but all reverted.

List assembled 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC), last updated by Nick Levine (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False alarms?

[edit]
  • 86.133.108.17 -- 30 edits over a day and a bit, 2014-01-22. Similar editing pattern, related IP, most edits don't look bad, the two edit summaries given are not broken; but see this edit (reverted here).
  • 86.133.108.141 -- 50 edits over 5 days, starting 2014-02-03. Similar editing pattern, related IP, most edits (have rapid-checked first 48 hours worth) don't look bad, the one edit summary given is not broken; but see this edit (reverted here).

Rollback and reviewer granted

[edit]

Hello Nick Levine. Your account has been granted the "rollback" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Reviewer user right
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Cleansing revert

[edit]

There are some sources supporting this addition discussed on Wikipedia at The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine#The ethnic cleansing thesis. Alatari (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then Ethnic Cleansing should say that this is a thesis? Nick Levine (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this is a very controversial topic so I started looking around. I need to do more reading but Noam Chomsky's article in 2000 is one of the first to show up on a search that isn't Ilan Pappé and he uses the term as such ... were articulated in internal discussion by Israeli government Arabists in 1948 while outright ethnic cleansing was underway: their expectation was that the refugees "would be crushed" and "die," while "most of them would turn into human dust and the waste of society, and join the most impoverished classes in the Arab countries." . What internal discussions he is referring to is uncited. His later article about the current situation where nearly 1000 civilians were killed has sourcing. Alatari (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the turn into human dust and the waste of society seems to be from (87) Avi Shlaim, Collusion across the Jordan (Columbia, 1988), 388, paraphrasing 1948 JCS records; 491, citing the Israeli state archives. For references and further details, see Towards a New Cold War (chapter 7), and Fateful Triangle, chapter 2. found in this chapter of Noam's 1991 book Deterring Democracy by South End Press Chapter 1: Cold War: Fact and Fancy Segment. Though a word search in that book shows no usage of the ethnic cleansing term. Alatari (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are 5 more academics, all historians, that have referred to the 1948 war being classified as ethnic cleansing, whether intentional or as a consequence:
  • Benny Morris The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (1989) "[i]n retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews.
  • Benny Morris 1948: A History the First Arab-Israeli War (2006) "[d]uring the 1948 War, (...) although there were expulsions and although an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed during critical months, transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy."
  • Ilan Pappé and Walid Khalidi: History and Invention. Was Plan D a Blueprint for Ethnic Cleansing ? (2006)
  • Walid Khalidi in Plan Dalet: The Zionist Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine (1961)
  • Nur-eldeen Masalha in Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought (1991)
  • Rosemarie Esber in Under the cover of war (2008) concur with Ilan Pappé and brings new arguments from British documents to support the thesis that the exodus had been planned by the Yishuv leaders.
It might be controversial but it has enough sources to add a section followed by contravening sources if need be. Alatari (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments

[edit]

First of all good work on collecting details of the "ITV Vandal" above. I noticed that several of the IPs were purple-linked for me indicating that I'd examined their edits in the past. I wish I could remember the context... It looks to me like it might be an example of subtle vandalism. You might be interested in dropping a note at the SVT talk page. It's not particularly active sadly, but it's good to spread awareness of thee problem editors' methods and characteristics.

Secondly, as I'm sure you're aware, the editor operating as User:190.102.17.180 (who recently reverted you on several articles) is the same as the one who was operating as User:99.64.170.58‎ (who has recently been re-blocked for block evasion because she's evading the 2005-era indefinite block of her User:Lysdexia account). This "Lysdexia" is a long-time Wikipedia vandal and troll with her very own Long-term abuse page. She is apparently unable to control herself and persists in editing here despite the fact that she has been politely asked to depart many times. Anyway I'm not sure how you want to proceed since she's probably just using this new account as a throwaway so a whole new SPI case may not be very effective, but feel free to revert her edits on sight per WP:EVADE and WP:DENY. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

[edit]

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandal

[edit]

Hello, I have removed (and am removing again) the material from the article on the Chandal section of the Dhund/Dhond (so called Hill Abbasis) tribe as the material is spurious and without any proper source/ref at all. I hope you will please appreciate my efforts as an expert and authority of the Pakistan hill tribes, to rectify this. Thanks 39.54.205.177 (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Hilda Khan, Pakistan[reply]

Certainly you're always welcome to work on WP without registering, and your contributions are valued. What I hadn't spotted (and if I had spotted it I would not have reverted your edit) was that you were a long-term contributor. If you were to register, that confusion would go away. Anyway, that's your call. All the best, Nick Levine (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Polytechnic

[edit]

Hi Nick,
Thanks for weighing in on the Singapore Polytechnic(SP) page. This has been going on since ~20 January when I reverted the addition of a mass of links that literally tripled the size of the page, in bytes anyway! This included linking iirc every single section heading and to every single webpage for every single course and every extra-curricular activity, sport etcetera that the SP has!

All the edits seem to come from IPs linked to the instutition.220 of Borg 10:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 220! I guess the IPs are trying to get around the name-conflicted Singpoly... Do you think it would work to revert this page to a previous good state and then dig our heels in? (Ie would that mean losing a bunch of good edits in the process?) If single IPs mess with the page they can be warned off (and, if they persist, reported to ARV). If multiple IPs wade in, maybe the page should be semi-protected? Nick Levine (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, it's pretty much a single IP (164.78.252.200) right now. Next warning should be level 3. Nick Levine (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi back! :-)
I'm not certain about RFPP. I wonder if they are even bothering to read their talkpage! This sort of tenacity makes me think of a paid editor, or a PR person trying to 'improve' the page, without really knowing what they are doing. I have already pointed out to 164.78.252.200 (talk · contribs) that it will be real bad PR if the press finds out about the editing practices of IPs linked to their institution.
It's small wonder that editors get pissed off when such silly edits keep getting re-done. I have already spent a lot of time turning the in-text external links into references. That was the first thing the #£%&* reverted, my filling in of 30 references! Ridiculous!
I also notice that there are still a lot of links (42!) that need 'conversion', from School of Chemical and Life Sciences onwards. I'm not sure if so many links are considered excessive/promotional, I certainly dont want to have to re-do them! Is there a script or tool that removes in-text or in-heading links aoutomatically. 220 of Borg 11:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about WP scripts. For a once off someone (myself, if the mood grabs me) could pass the article's raw text through a decent editor such as Emacs and do something semi-automated to edit out the bad links. Otoh, the whole article reads like a non-notable laundry list. Is it really encyplodaedic to list every diploma offered (whether or not it's dolled up as an external link)? Nick Levine (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"encyplodaedic" ;-) ?, no, probably not encyclopaedic either. We do seem to have got a response from someone, 58.182.202.158 (talk · contribs), related to these edits at Talk:Singapore Polytechnic#Cleaning up of 'linkfarm'. 220 of Borg 15:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58.182.202.158 (talk · contribs) only has 3 contribs, and the edit-revert cycle they complained about isn't obvious in the main article's recent history. Nick Levine (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"encyplodaedic"? Well, perhaps I should admit, then then again you just found out: my spelling is sometimes a bit off. Nick Levine (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Vincent talk page

[edit]

IP address 174.111.227.167 deleted what I had written on Leah Vincent's talk page. Can I undo that?

(I'm not sure if I should write on your wall or mine)

Thank you. 208.105.78.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored all text deleted from the talk page since my initial notes to you both. Nick Levine (talk)

Heatherington is Scottish and irish

[edit]

Heatherington is Scottish what are you are on aboot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.202.45 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet

[edit]

Hi, you've reverted one of the changes we made a while ago on the Carpet page. We basically fixed a 404 error with a page that has the same information, unique content, hosted on a different site.

Do you consider that reverting to a 404 page instead of using an alternative page is more realistic? What do you think the user prefers: - to read the piece of news, regardless of where it's stored; [or] - to click on a link and to land on a nonexistent page.

You're supposed to be objective, and I look forward to seeing the logic of your actions, thanks.

See reply on Magiccarpetlondon's talk page. Nick Levine (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments on my talk page

[edit]

You know I have a wiki account and just often can't be bothered to log into it for minor edits, don't you? Not that I don't appreciate your subtle hints.

81.97.70.44 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC) (your son)[reply]

Revision War - Help Requested

[edit]

Hi Nick. I believe we may need some help on the Gospel Hall Brethren page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gospel_Hall_Brethren. There is a desire of one (some) to add a reference to the recent criminal behavior of one individual to the site, which (as far as I can see) has no relevancy to the page topic. There is the start of an edit war, but the page may be better served by some temporary protection against this vandalism. The contributor of this edit will not engage in a discussion about it on the talk page. Any help would be appreciated!JEH117818 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC) It is blatanty untrue to say the contributors have not been discussing on the Talk page, please read it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.202.36 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the person to help you here. If matters are really getting out of control, you need to engage admin help. I'm somewhat out of the loop right now and can't remember offhand the precise procedure. sorry about that. Nick Levine (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Nick Levine. 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

[edit]

Hello, Nick Levine. 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

[edit]

Hello, Nick Levine. 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]

Page move

[edit]

S190521g has been moved. You've probably seen that by now. The way it was initially done is discouraged. It gives the appearance of one editor having produced an article on their own as if by magic when in fact it was written, perhaps by multiple editors over many years. This is known as attribution. The incorrect type of page move is known as a cut'n'paste move, for opbvious reasons. I reverted it. I then submitted a move request to do it the right way. I then removed your comment from the talk page (apologies, slightly not the done thing, but you can't have questions lying around on a redirect page). It is possible for the history of one article to be merged into another, but it is messy and difficult. Far easier in most cases to reverse the cut'n'paste move and do it properly. There were subsequent edits that will have been lost, but I don't think they added a lot and there were issues with citation formats, etc. It is all coming together, don't worry. Lithopsian (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not worrying, and many thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Parish

[edit]

Hi this is Steve Parish. So I am not able to bring my own page up to date? I don't understand? Steve Parish. I tried logging in, by the way, the user name and password did not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.66.133 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the other user’s talk page. Nick Levine (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Levine/Archive_2&oldid=1056981837"