User talk:Schafesd

Welcome!

Hello, Schafesd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Guettarda 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICR

Just a heads up, but at wikipedia, using reference sources which are self published is problematic, and if the author him or herself is adding their own work as reference to WP, that creates even more of a problem. It's generally a bad idea; it's much better in such cases to bring the self sourced content to talk pages for discussion to see if an exception should be made. In other words, in 99.9% of cases authors should not add their own works as reference sources to the article space in wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Citizens for Science

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Texas Citizens for Science, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.texscience.org/about.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order for TCS to give permission, the original website needs to be modified to say released under the GFDL or specific permission to that affect needs to be sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" from an address that is identifiable as being authorized to provide such permission. The statement "text from its website could be used under fair use standards" is not sufficient as fair use standards only allow for minimal quoting; not whole sale copying. While you could have the material formally released, I'd recommend that you simply re-write it. It was not really suitable for a Wikipedia article. I suggest taking some time to become familiar with our policies and guidelines including: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. The article needs to be more than a copy of the organization's website to comply with those. Let me know if you ahve more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. I will send the GFDL permission to Wikipedia as described. I wrote a description of TCS that is not copied from anywhere, including the TCS website. Steven (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Texas Citizens for Science

An editor has nominated Texas Citizens for Science, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Citizens for Science and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of intererst warning: Texas Citizens for Science

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Texas Citizens for Science, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. TableManners^C·U·T 05:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article

I am developing a draft article on the "Citizens for Science" groups here. Your input is welcome. Guettarda (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a draft article, so hopefully it will turn into an article eventually. Right now I am focussing on making it an annotated list, but if the individual entries are substantial enough they can be spun off into their own articles.

One of the problems we have here is that "fails to assert notability" is a criterion for speedy deletion - one that, in my opinion, is often abused (it's the kind of thing that can drive away new contributors even faster than nominating an article for deletion. Working in user space avoids some of these pitfalls. Creating a list is another way to work through the notability issues. As you compile information for a list, it's easy to see what's likely to be judged as "notable" and what isn't.

So yes, please do feel free to turn references into text. Guettarda (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guettarda. Thanks for the help with Texas Citizens for Science. I have edited some WP articles but never created a new article before, so I didn't know what I was getting in to. I was forced to create the TCS article when no one else did. I didn't think copying from my own site's text would be a copyright violation, but it was. Then, I didn't know that references are essential to satisfy notability; I had the ones there now and more, which I will send you, and could have used them. That AfD discussion was amazing. Prof Marginalia warned about using my own web articles as references, but that seems extremely harsh when those articles contain valuable information that is found nowhere else because the MSM won't publish some things. There is a lot of original research in my web articles, and journalists do use that material. As for writing about my own organization, my excuse is that no one else would or did until I created the page, which I thought was necessary considering the current controversies going on right now. I am happy to leave TCS to others if they do a good job.

Okay, I can help you with your Citizens for Science list. I have a habit of copying news articles from the web because I know that many will be unaccessible later, so I have huge files from several states, specifically Florida (which I already searched), Georgia, Ohio, and Kansas, all of which are extremely active. So is MN, CO, and NM. So I can get more references. Next, I will summarize articles and write text with references, since I can do this for other CfS articles but not my own. Right? This will take some time, however, which I don't have a lot of now. Also, there is a Citizens for Science site at http://citizensforscience.org/ that covers all the orgs that exist now. I see that it is pretty inactive, and so is their private email list which I am on but hasn't had a message in years!

Finally, do I reply to you on this talk page (my own) as I am doing now or on yours. If yours, do I start a new section like you did with this section? If I create a new section in the bottommost section, does the software automatically make it a different section with the edit button? Thanks. Steven (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Hi there, thanks for your input on Introduction to evolution, if you have time, could you have a look through the main evolution article to see if any parts are inaccurate? This is the more technical of the pair of articles, so your expertise would be particularly welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the extremely rapid response. You must get a notification if someone edits an article or page. Of course I will be happy to look at it and let you know if it needs help or revision. I have a question, though. Do I respond to you here or on your talk page? If the latter, do I start a new section like you did on my talk page? Thanks. Steven (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you click the tab that says "Watch" at the top of an article it is added to your watchlist, which you access through the "my watchlist" link at the top right of the webpage. If you have any comments, feedback or suggestions it would be bset to make a new section on the article's talk page Talk:Evolution. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim, I read the entire WP article on Evolution and it is both accurate and excellent. Nothing needs to be revised. Certain topics could be expanded, but that would be in their own articles. Thanks for explaining the watchlist function; I'll begin to use it. I see I am automatically watching my own talk page, which is probably a good idea. Steven (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! If I can help with anything, just drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. Good to have you around. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, i liked your suggestions and added some of them into the introduction. I hope you don't mind but I moved your comment down into its own section (Talk:Introduction_to_evolution#HW_equilibrium) since it started off on a line of discussion on whether to keep the HW equilibrium, or not, in this introductory article. As an educator i think you opinion might be interesting here. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David, Thanks for the response. I will check out the new section and post subsequent remarks or suggestions there. Steven (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud of Turin

Hi there! You added a "fact" tag to the Shroud of Turin article in this edit today, but you dated it last August. I've gone back through the article's history to see whether you were reinstating an old tag, but I can't find any evidence of the tag ever being placed there previously. I'm wondering if I've missed some good reason for it being backdated. I've redated it for now to give others a chance to respond before someone else decides that no support has been forthcoming in almost a year and deletes the material in question prematurely. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add a "citation needed" tag to the end of the sentence with the dubious claim and so, not knowing the format, I copied the tag from elsewhere in the page and neglected to change the date. Thank you for correcting the format and date. I see that the "fact" tag is the old version of what is now the "citation needed" tag. Steven (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can simply type {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} and a bot will follow close behind you and add the date. Wiki's full of little tricks like that. Check this page for more info on the tag. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Peter Brimelow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Song Thrush

I reverted your good faith edit to this page because

It is a Featured Article (FA) and additions must provide properly formatted independent verifiable sources
Your addition seemed to be about the American Robin, which has its own FA, not the Song Thrush
There are nearly 60 members of Turdus, not obvious why American Robin is special enough to be mentioned in a different bird's article

thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Lee (general) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

> During this time in America, he married the daughter of a [[Mohawk nation|Mohawk]] Indian chief.<ref name=anb/<ref name=marchant105/><ref name="boiling water">{{cite web| url = http://boston1775.
the British of the path of a Continental Army patrol that is massacred by [[Roger's Rangers]]) and later tells them the location of a Continental Army safe house, which the Continental Army

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2014 (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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Schafesd. 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, Schafesd. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permian Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Schafesd. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Contentious Topic Alert

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expected Oak Azimuth to revert me, but he is incorrect in his judgement about W:NPF and W:BLPNAME. Hannah Buckingham initiated this right-wing attack against an innocent and superbly competent, hard-working, and sympathetic pharmaceutical assistant professor who does not have tenure, so she is vulnerable for her entire career and success in life on the ignorant and politically partisan whims of radical politicians who think they have the right to force their own reactionary agendas on the lives of others. One criticism--from a student with a politically-connected parent who can phone the Texas Lt. Gov. and the chancellors of two giant university systems--could be enough to destroy a non-tenured professor's career and life. Alonzo was intellectually assaulted by a single politically-motivated student she cared for (among others) and by colleagues and university leaders she trusted, so now she is scared and appalled. I would be, too. The professor at UTMB who organized Alonzo's lecture, Self, is now distancing himself from her, and even her own supervisor at A&M, Udeani, has become patriarchal and noxious, warning her to "be mindful of how you present your views."

Alonzo's "views" happen to be 100% scientifically correct, 100% medically correct, and ones that are 100% greatly needed to be publicized today to oppose the ignorant and failed political, medical, and educational policies of venal autocrats like Patrick in this state. Hannah Buckingham is intelligent and ambitious, but hopelessly caught up in her mother's reprehensible reactionary politics, so she has become willfully ignorant and demonstrated extremely poor judgement. She is not a child whose identity must legitimately be concealed, she is at least 22 years old, and she now makes her own decisions about who she denounces or not, and she didn't give a moment's thought to how complaining about an esteemed professor for her mild criticism of a family friend's political policies could cause permanent and irreparable harm to her career and livelihood. Hannah deserves to be named publicly when she initiates this sort of right-wing criticism and intimidation of totally innocent, productive, and competent university professors. Of course, the actions of her mother and Patrick and their staffs are far worse, but all of the perpetrators should be named and exposed for history, if nothing else, and that includes the initiator. The Texas Tribune laudably began the process. I predict future media articles will name Hannah and she will get the exposure she deserves.

I can't understand why Oak Azimuth is trying to protect Hannah Buckingham. She is now a public figure and unfortunately now similar to her radical mother. Hannah's name is now all over the web. Until it's removed, go to https://www.instagram.com/p/CtzjQ1mJnMu/ and see what people think about her. I didn't (and wouldn't) write these comments in a WP article!

Replying to you, Morbidthoughts, none of what I wrote is original research. I live in West Texas and am not close to the participants, so I rely solely on the news articles I read and cite. But I have a great deal of experience with Texas authoritarian, duplicitous, intimidating, and mean-spirited politics, so I can read between the lines. I understand what is really happening. You don't know this, but EVERYTHNG in Texas is political, including science, education, and science education. The reactionaries and fascists who run this state don't hesitate to substitute their own ignorant gut feelings for informed, professional knowledge. That's why their political policies have failed in the past, fail now, and will continue to fail. Just use Texas drug policy as an example. Patrick still advocates a punitive policy that goes after users, the ones who need medical care. He denies state funding for opioid test strips, anti-opioid drugs, and opioid-addiction health care. In Europe and enlightened states in the U.S., the policies are different and much more successful. Opioid addiction is much lower.

I appreciate your suggestion to discuss and gain consensus on the article talk page. I will. But I don't have time to keep monitoring this issue, so the public who reads WP will continue to be ignorant and the guilty escape public exposure.

Steven (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research because no reliable source has reported the daughter's name in the context of the controversy. There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboard about this controversy[1] that you may want to participate in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean by "original research." It took me 2 minutes to discover her real name. I acknowledge that MSM has not printed her first name. I will have to refer to her as Ms. Buckingham, since the Texas Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and Chronicle for Higher Education all identified her as Dawn B.'s daughter. Thanks for the tip to visit the BLP Noticeboard link. I will tomorrow and I have plenty to say. Steven (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts, I couldn't find anything about Dan Patrick at the URL you specified. The only item I found on Dan Patrick in the archives was at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive198#Dan_Patrick which was an old entry. I am not familiar with how WP is constructed to understand why there is nothing about Patrick and the Buckingham controversy at the link you cite. Steven (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]