User talk:When Other Legends Are Forgotten

Welcome!

Hello, When Other Legends Are Forgotten! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 04:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Dead links

From Template:Dead link: "If the article uses clickable footnotes, then this tag should be placed just before the </ref> that contains the dead link. The notice will then correctly appear in the reference section (instead of in the body of the text, which is not recommended)." Also, links added by an editor in good standing that later become dead are not then missing citations. There is no requirement that sources appear on the internet at all. Zero^talk 00:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I will implement that. There is certainly a requirement that statements be sourced, and if the links are dead, they are unsourced. You added these links today - did you not check them? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, none of the links marked as dead were added by me; please let me know if you find an exception. Most were added years ago. The main policy pages WP:V and WP:RS do not anywhere state that sources have to be on the internet, and this a long-standing principle. Something like "Report on the Situation of Bedouin Refugees in the West Bank. United Nations UNRWA. May 2006." is a valid source even if it is no longer at the URL it used to be at. Of course we should try to find a new URL for it, but even if there are none it is still a valid reference. Zero^talk 01:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my mistake, they do appear to have been in the article for a long time. I disagree that this is a valid reference, though. It can't be verified. How do we know such a links exists in the first place, let alone verify that it contains what the editor who put it in claims? BTW, your removal of the tag seems to be a violation of the 1RR restriction on this article. You should probably put it back, regardless of our discussion here. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had forgotten that I had removed a different tag in my previous sequence of edits; I restored this one for now. It doesn't belong though. There is a general principle in Wikipedia that "verifiable" does not mean "easily verifiable". See WP:SOURCEACCESS. You can verify the source I mentioned by going to a library that has the paper editions of UNRWA publications. The fact that UNRWA published such a report in 2006 is in the 2006 annual report, so it would be hard to make a case that the source doesn't exist. Personally I spend a lot of time looking at sources on paper that aren't on the web. Another relevant page, though it is an explanatory essay rather than a policy, is WP:Offline sources. Zero^talk 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true for the UNRWA publication, but seems unlikely to be true for the Amnesty web page, or the POICA web site. Are you not bothered by the fact that none of the 4 links provided for that section can be verified to come from a reliable source? How will this get fixed if not by placing a tag calling editors' attention to it? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk)

The "dead link" tag serves that purpose. It always bothers me when I can't look at a source myself, but I have to follow the rules. Zero^talk 03:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Amnesty and POICA articles are on archive.org, but I'm out of time for a while. Zero^talk 03:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when you get the chance, add them, and remove the tag. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your a legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.140.250 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

When Other Legends Are Forgotten (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea what disruption I am accused of, and no example of such "disruption" was provided for me to respond to.When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the link at ANI, indicated below, there are seven links to disruptive edits made by you, which were pointed out to the community before your unblock request. If you do not see them as disruptive that only reinforces the view that you should not be editing here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

See the comments at WP:ANI#False claims of vandalism, from what I can see they are a quite accurate summary of this editor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any comment by you there - and oTOH I see the following "Could you elaborate, please? Dan Murphy made serious accusations without a single diff to support them.". How about YOU provide some reasoning for your block? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: I haven't checked the other diffs in detail, but here When Other Legends Are Forgotten was correcting the UN quote in the "Ramallah" section per source while other editors, in reverting him, deviated from the wording of the source of the quote. To me this looks like one of the usual Israeli-Palestinian content disuptes where When's changes have at least some merit. Huon (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Arguable, but on a subject as sensitive as this talk page discussion is, as you know, vastly preferable. IMHO the other diffs show more straightforward POV vandalism. If you feel an unblock is merited, and the blocking admin concurs, feel free to unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend an unblock myself, as I don't really see much potential for this editor, but I wouldn't consider it wheel warring. I didn't do this as an AE block, so standard admin discretion applies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: If you check that diff you mentioned, you'll see a few interesting things. First of all, all these changes were introduced by an IP in May [1]. They were immediately reverted by an experienced editor. Since then they have been occasionally removed and restored by several other editors. These are not WOLAF's words, this is the longstanding consensus version. That's without going into the actual content. That Dan Murphy would call this "vandalism" is ridiculous.

What happened here is that an editor ran afoul of the Good Old Boys Network, got banned by an admin that doesn't even feel he needs to explain what exactly the problem is, and has little recourse since other admins don't usually want to jump into this sort of stuff.

And then people are surprised Wikipedia can't hold on to editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: - I was the one who provided those diffs, they are diffs of Dan Murphy's edits not mine. But perhaps you are referring to my edits that preceded Dan's, so let's ;look at the in detail , please, so I can learn how to improve. Let's start with this the first one:- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zion_Square_assault&diff=prev&oldid=686027709 - I added a "dead link' template to a link that was, you know, dead. Is that an example of "straightforward POV vandalism"? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: - Thanks for reviewing this. I agree more discussion on the talkpages of these articles would have been better, and will do so in the future, if you unblock me. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I realize that the diffs provided show edits both from Dan Murphy and from WOLAF; it is the edits made by WOLAF which I am referring to, and which I feel are unacceptable, possibly excluding the one pointed out by Huon. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: You are incorrect. the diffs are ONLY of edits by Dan Murphy. So let me ask you again: In this edit, I tagged a dead link with the "dead link" template - in what way is this edit "unacceptable"? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked this account. I didn't see the POV vandalism issues, and the assurance to make use of talk pages in future helps. When Other Legends Are Forgotten, you should be aware that you're editing a very contentious topic. Huon (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you , Huon. I will take more cre in the future. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Huon (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts

Hi there - just a short reminder to sign your talk page posts. I noticed you put a {{uw-coi}} template on User talk:Indianapolis Indians Marketing but didn't sign it. I'm sure it was just a simple oversight. Cheers. --Drm310 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note. an oversight, indeed. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Super 5

As you mentioned that there is not notable references so i am mentioning here a reference link and will request to keep that page in WIKI and give your blessings to Super5. http://jaago.indiaonline.in/Super-5-13511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachans9 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Neo-Zionism does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

Managing biased sources

Hi,

You are certainly right here but you cannot just replace "most" by "some" because if Falk is not reliable because biased you are even less because unaware of the topic and the answer. We some in the "sentence" it means it could be a minority view. We don't know.

The options are :

just to remove the whole information ("most experts")
find sources that contredicts or support Falk in order to establish the due weight.

But wp:npov doesn't mean we can change the claims of the sources that we have because we think they are biased (and even if they are).

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seal of the Dominican Order, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apostolic. 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) 09:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wikihounding me

Wikihounding another editor—even an IP editor—is considered harassment. Please stop. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hounding you. You need to log in to your registered account and stop avoiding scrutiny. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose it's just a coincidence that you keep showing up at pages I edit? Stop it! 107.10.236.42 (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Log in to your account if you want to continue this discussion. I am not debating anything with scrutiny -evading, IP-hopping sock puppets. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to discuss. Stop wikihounding me or I will start responding. Understand? 107.10.236.42 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's indeed nothing to discuss. You need to log in to your registered account, stop socking and stop avoiding scrutiny. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_or_hounding.3F. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out reverting at sight

I forgot an edit summary, and the revert consisted in providing a new link for Norway not including Hamas in a terrorist classification.1 Bad Dryer was technically correct, and like most POV warriors, lazy, since any one can check that Norway does not classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. Had you noted the new source, would you have e thought it still justifiable to revert me because I forgot the edit summary?Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had you provided n edit summary that said something like "restoring, with a new source that actually supports the text" I wouldn't have reverted you. But you screwed up, and rather than acknowledging your screw up, by adding an edit summary immediately afterwards, or, if it was too late for that, maybe posting a comment on the Talk page or my talk page asking me to self revert, or even coming back a day later and doing your revert (remember - WP:TIND) , this time with a proper explanation, you come here to try to fault me for not recognizing you screwed up.

And speaking of blind reverts, do you have an opinion on the blind revert by your buddy @RolandR: here, which reintroduced the same sentence twice, sourced to the same article? Or is your faux indignation reserved for POVs you don't like? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't screw up. I lapsed. When you revert, you should examine what the previous editor did. As several reverters are doing (reverting again me at Amin al-Husseini so blindly they do not notice they are removing intermediate edits involving correction of dates and spellings) it means that this is personal, or ideological, and not motivated by intelligent assessments of the merits.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lapsed , screwed up you say tomato I say to-mah-to. DO you have any response to the quetsion I asked you about the blind rever doen by your buddy @RolandR: When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) Or is your faux indignation reserved for POVs you don't like? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing behavior

In accordance with the guidance provided at WP:AGF, I see no reason to continue assuming you edit in good faith. What remains is compilation of a case to have you topic-banned. Zero^talk 07:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take you empty threats and shove them. You are one of the worst civil pushers around, a SPA if ever there was one. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is once again disruptive. I don't know how many people need to point this out to you before you will get the hint. You cannot simply revert pages without reaching consensus. On the "segregation" page, you cannot simply undo the page when mountains of sources and citations are against your point of view.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have it wrong. The onus is on those wanting to include contested material. You have no such consensus - and in fact multiple people have told you as much on the article's talk page. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ad hominem epiteths you employ, such as "shove them", "the worst civil pusher" constitute WP:PERSONAL. Please refrain from using them for the sake of civility and WP itself. Zezen (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racial segregation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethiopians. 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) 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

According to WP:ARBPIA3, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." This means neither the IP or KirinD are allowed to edit the page. However, the IP reverted the changes made by KirinD. Just wanted to clear that up so it didn't turn into an edit war. clpo13_(talk) 00:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's clear. And KirinD is blocked. Are you going to block the IP ? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, but you could report them at WP:AIV. It looks like they might be dynamic, though. clpo13_(talk) 00:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I report them at WP:AIV? This is a content dispute, not vandalism. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war

Will you look at the article's edit history? Point by point (talk · contribs) should not be editing that article either, and if you're going to revert my edits under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, you damn sure better revert his as well. 66.87.115.1 (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit here. Log into your account, Malik, and stop these shenanigans. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk)

I don't know who Malik is, but I know who you are, NoCal100. POV pushing isn't allowed under ARBPIA3, either, you know. 66.87.115.110 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you know who Malik is. Stop playing these games if you hope to ever get your bit back. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk)

Warned per an edit warring complaint

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#When Other Legends Are Forgotten reported by 81.132.249.228 (Result: Semi, Both warned). Both you and the IP are on a short leash. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, Ed for semi-protecting the page. and I acknowledge the warning. I will not remove the IPs talk page comments until the rules applicable to WP:PIA3 are further clarified. I believe the administrators of this site should be more proactive in requesting these clarifications if you are entrusted with enforcing the case's remedies. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you turn up again at any admin boards, it would be logical to ban you from I/P topics under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what does that mean? That if that vexatious IP decides to file yet another meritless complaint, you're going to reward them by topic banning me? After just saying you are not even sure if the article in question is subject to ARBPIA?When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certain that Ethnocracy is related to I/P. But changing the part about Belgium might or might not fall under 1RR. It is probably simpler to read the whole article as being under 1RR and being excluded from anonymous edits, but my brain is too tired to work that out now. Sometimes Arbcom writes as though *pages* are covered by AC/DS and sometimes as though *edits* are covered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No argument with the above, and I would certainly not have had any issues with the IP editing the Belgium section. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

When Other Legends Are Forgotten (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not have multiple accounts - this is my only one. This account is not a sockpuppet

Decline reason:

The technical and behavioural evidence disagrees. Huon (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

When Other Legends Are Forgotten (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand what that means. I have no other account, so what is this t'technical evidence? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Refer to Wikipedia:CHECKUSER. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Clarification request archived

Your request for clarification has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, When Other Legends Are Forgotten. 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]