Misplaced Pages

User talk:Wikieditorpro: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:28, 2 July 2014 editWikieditorpro (talk | contribs)668 editsm →1rr violation at 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:58, 13 January 2019 edit undoWOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs)Bots158,343 editsm fix html tag issues and reduce lint errors 
(16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome -->--] (]) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome -->--] (]) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==
== Reported for edit warring on Dispatches_(TV_series) ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
You have been reported for edit warring on this article and ignoring the talk page. ] ] (]) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for helping to make a more supporting user environment for us "noobs". You rock! --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</small> 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
|}


== Arbitration enforcement sanction ==
: Detailed refutation to frivolous claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dispatches_(TV_series)] (]) 14:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

== Edit warring at ] ==

Hello Wikipeditorpro. Please add a comment at ] and agree to stop edit warring on this article. Both you and Vexorg should be aware of the steps of ]. If you won't follow our policies, the article may be fully protected or placed under a 1RR restriction. ] (]) 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

== 1RR on the UN/Israel article ==

Please note the 1RR restriction indicated at the top of the talk page. I had forgotten about it myself and will not this time be raising it at ]. I get the impression you might want to learn about ] more generally. If you want to respond, please do so here, I'll check back. ] (]) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
: The paragraph in question has three sentences. The first is false. The seconding is misleading. The third is deceptive. It serves no purpose on Misplaced Pages besides to push an individual's POV which is why I deleted it. You are welcome to write a replacement, but it shouldn't be returned. ] (])
::: I updated my opinion about his on the article's discussion page. ] (])
::::Harp on about the paragraph if you want, but if you continue reverting more than once in 24 hours, you'll end up at ]. ] (]) 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You can suck the proverbial egg. I violated the rule once and acknowledged having done so. Whose sock are you, anyway? ] (]) 06:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

==Your recent edits==
] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button ] or ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 21:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

== Personal attack ==

] such as are not permitted on Misplaced Pages. If you persist in such attacks, you risk being blocked.--] (]) 17:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
: It was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. If you want to further dispute that, you are welcome any time.] (]) 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:: It was obviously a personal attack, and a very serious one. You also just some text from another article claiming it is unsourced when more than half of what you deleted consisted of sources (and very strong sources at that). Maybe you need to take a break before you do even worse damage to your reputation here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Now I see you doing the same at ], so I see your phoney edit summary at ] was not an accident. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Do you know what "unsourced" means? I started to write a complaint against you. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::: Does your statement that I "can't read" not obviate that question? ] (]) 04:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: As an act of good faith I assumed your edit at ] was due to carelessness, though I should have said so more politely. After that I noticed you used the same untrue edit summary in other edits, the first example was mentioned here. So it appears that you have a behavioral problem that is worse than carelessness. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::::: Oh, and your claim that something is a "non-sequitor" when it is on exactly the same subject as the sentence you reverted to is on your charge sheet too.]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::: If you are looking for civil discourse and want to discuss the contents of the articles or my edits specificially, then I suggest you shift your tone away from trying to intimidate me with your threats. I'm too old for that.] (]) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== Anti-Israel vandalism ==

Check out this nonsense: Apparently a user removed some ] editions because it was a clear "Unexplained removal of content and POV", but his legitimate correction was because he is a blocked user. Perhaps you could restore it. Greetings.--] (]) 14:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:I recommend you read ] before you do that. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== 3RRN ==

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== ] violation at ] ==

<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> To enforce an ] decision, ]you have been ''']''' from editing for '''48 hours'''. You are welcome to ] once the block expires.&nbsp;If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. <hr/><p><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a ] "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> ] violation at ], an article which is under the ] 1RR restriction, as shown on its talk page. The complete report of this case is at ]. ] (]) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


:: Can you explain why I was not even allowed even one single day to respond to a complaint regarding my attempt to replace serious ] violations posted by an extremely hostile administrator who was unwilling to engage in dialogue with me, even for a compromise version?

:: There are several reasons why I believe that my actions were fully in accordance with the rules.
:: And I also believe that a close reading of the edits, particularly my attempt to fix the serious ] issues, would negate any need to even respond to the report.

:: This seems to put those of us who are not full-time wikipedians (those that have lives etc) at a huge disadvantage of having to appeal to overturn a ruling of another administrator instead of simply issuing an explanation, because we cannot respond within a few hours of a report. ] (]) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::: I have read the page on appealing Misplaced Pages blocks. I do not want to use email as I do not want this information to be private. However I do not understand how to initiate an appeal or to make an unblock request. I request assistance in doing so. ] (]) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:::: Just make an edit here using the unblock template, like <nowiki>{{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki>. You will see that it expands into an appeal notice. Probably putting it just below the block notice is best. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:My guess is that the reason you were blocked in the time-frame used is that you carried on editing the article (and others besides) even after being notified of the report at ]. It's then less persuasive to say that you weren't given time to respond. ] (]) 05:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::I don't believe that is a satisfactory explanation as:
::1) My further edits were not in violation of any rules and they clearly improved the article, 2) The block was enacted over 12 hours after my last edit.

:: Furthermore, I don't recall ever having dealt with an issue on the Misplaced Pages administrator boards before. Making changes on Misplaced Pages is one thing. Reading through all the documentation and instructions to create a reply, or "diffs" is far more difficult and time consuming. ] (]) 10:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== Appeal for Unblock ==

{{unblock reviewed | 1= The text which I reverted violated ] quite clearly. Its first four words were a clear distortion of the source, which has a very different meaning. I was entitled to revert it as per ], and I was required to revert is as per ]: "" Additionally I voluntarily withdrew from editing for two days to allow for a cooling off period and I constructed a compromise in good faith which was reverted as per ] like the previous reverts. ] (]) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | decline=Procedural decline. You must follow the instructions in ] ] (]) 00:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)}}


Supplementary Information:

Summary:

1) I reverted the clearly distorted edit as per ].

2) I demonstrated goodwill by voluntarily withdrawing from editing for two days to allow for a cooling off period.

3) My subsequent edits on the 20th were part of a compromise (not as a reversion) which would replace the text with a direct quote as ] wanted.

4) Seeking to continue the hostilities, ] reverted the compromise with sarcastic remarks.
Despite ] he insisted that I would have to convince him of my edits in the talk section (not just the edit summary as I was doing per ], despite the fact that neither he nor ] would provide a proper reason for their edits even in the edit summary.

5) I reverted to the compromise text and noted ] as required by ].

6) My edits were in the spirit of improving Misplaced Pages and are well within the guidelines.

7) I accept that my edit summaries were too short and in some instances lacked the appropriate Misplaced Pages terminology which would have made them clearer.

8) As outlined below, from the outset I was hounded by a hostile and partisan administrator who seemed intent on launching personal attacks stating that I and that I should get lost , then attempting to foist his own personal preference on me. This created a hostile environment on Misplaced Pages which was not conducive to dialogue. Based on the convergence of evidence, I believe I was justified in believing that said administrator was abusing his position and trying to bully an amateur and infrequent Misplaced Pages editor into leaving Misplaced Pages.
] (]) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


In Detail:

The 48-hour block that was placed on me before I could post my response via the administrator's message board. This is a much more detailed description of events.

I will be addressing the claim that I violated the 1RR rule in the second paragraph of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Yitzhak_Shapira

According to ], "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard to a subject's privacy..."
In a book written in a foreign language, with a lot of jargon, there are often competing translations/interpretations. And a book written in such a hotspot is sure to generate numerous quotes, misquotes, dubious translation and out-of-context statements. As per ] I think it stands to reason that a more conservative and less sensationalist translation be used, and for the same reason, the quotes should not be taken out of the context that the book uses them in.

With than in mind on the 18th of February, I parts of the paragraph in question in order to make to make it more compatible with ] based on source.

] - responded to one of my edits by stating that And in what seemed to be extremely inappropriate comment for a Misplaced Pages administrator, told me in as many words to get off Misplaced Pages. I didn't take nicely to being told that by an administrator and thus began a heated series of exchanges during which I was told by said individual that I had
Said individual also decided to respond to my comments by invoking what seemed to me to intimidation tactics (why do I need to know that? He can let me know when he posts it) and then later responding to another edit he didn't like by saying that

Now the reason I am writing about the behavior of said individual is to give some context or the 1RR issue:
After posting my version of the paragraph, ] subsequently changed it to .

I will post only the first few words of his statement and the source:

Source:

]:

After those first few words, ] continues quoting the rest of the paragraph. Now at best this is a serious distortion.

And when you consider that article is dealing with a scholarly work which contains hundreds of sometimes competing, sometimes contradictory sources, rationales, theories, proposals, and ideas; many of which are subsequently discounted, limited in scope, or just tossed by the wayside, the disparity the statement "may be done" and "there is a reason" is even greater.

Aside from the distortion mentioned above, in contradiction to ] ] also opted for a particularly liberal out-of-context translation.

Why did ] replace my edit with his own. His statement:

As I showed above, he didn't use an actual quotation.

Furthermore, after seeing his comment, I searched but wasn't able to find any Misplaced Pages reference to a such a preference, leading me to believe that he was intent on just superimposing his own ] on me without explanation.

His actions above combined with the general hostility cited above led me to be believe that this was another front in the multi-pronged campaign of intimidation that he was engaging in (i.e. encouraging me "take a break").
Because of the serious ] issues above I decided to revert it.

Shortly thereafter ] for whatever reason, allied himself with ] and again without citing any proper reason except unquestioned support for 's version. Because I had serious concerns with the article and I believed that the environment wasn't conducive to discussion, I ceased editing for two days to allow everyone to cool off.

When I returned I decided to rewrite the article, and to include a compromise for the paragraph that we had previously squabbled over. I reverted the article to my original edit (as it closer to the final goal) and then which fixed my issue ] and ]'s issue as it included a direct quote.

] who had to the problematic version two days before without reason, again without reason, and disappointingly sought to continue the hostilities with the sarcastic remark "ever heard of the talk page". I reverted it to the fixed version (i.e. a DIFFERENT version than my original revert), writing He continued to hold himself as the gatekeeper, incorrectly stating that the onus was on me to justify my edit in the talk (despite my justification in the edit summaries) while he and ] refused to even justify their edit in the edit summaries with anything beyond a preference.

While it may have been better to use the talk page to clarify the revert, I did include the reason for my exception in the edit summary as per ], and I didn't feel that it was beneficial for Misplaced Pages or anyone else re-engage with someone who immediately sough to perpetuate hostilities in spite of both the cooling off period and my attempted compromise.

In retrospect, I regret the brevity of some of my edit statements. As an infrequent editor, it usually takes me a couple of days to refresh my memory with the Misplaced Pages lingo despite the fact that I am aware of the those rules and principles and abide by them. (During my first couple of comments for edits for example, while I was aware of the rules of the BLP rules, I forgot the terminology, and assumed, perhaps wrongly, that an experienced Misplaced Pages user, particularly an administrator, would be able to infer that the edits were BLP related.). The confrontation with ] likewise has its effect on me. In retrospect I acknowledge that my edit summaries could have and should have been more detailed and cited the appropriate Misplaced Pages rules.] (]) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


<table class="tmbox mbox-small"><tr><td class="mbox-image">]</td><td class="mbox-text">
<div style="font-size:95%;">This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new '''{{tlf|help me}}''' request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their ].</div></td></tr></table>
Apparently the unblock appeal is supposed to turn into an appeal notice, however that doesn't seem to be happening. I would appreciate help with the format of my appeal which is posted directly beneath the block notice at the beginning of this section. ] (]) 18:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:: It seems like there is a bug in the parser which prevented my appeal from turning into an appeal notice and I had to remove a lot of information from the appeal to get it to work.

:: However I am concerned that I could not include all the information that I wanted. How long can or should an appeal be? ] (]) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::There is no reason why you should not add supplementary information below the unblock appeal box, as you have done, but I advise you to be as concise as possible if you want an admin actually to read it all. See ]. ] (]) 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I request assistance with following the appeal procedure. I've read the page linked multiple times and I'm still not clear what I need to do to make my appeal consistent with the appeal procedures. ] (]) 01:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:If you want my advice. Since you were blocked because of an Arbcom decision I doubt you will be unblocked. You only have a few hours left on your block I would just wait it out. <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:I'm not really sure what you don't understand. What you need to do is explained clearly in ]. <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::The first two choices (e-mailing) are easy enough. The third choice (the template) is nightmarishly difficult. @Wikieditorpro, I suggest you either wait out the block or e-mail ArbCom. I don't know how quickly ArbCom responds to such requests.--] (]) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::: I appreciate the response but being told that something is nightmarishgly difficult is not very helpful to me. I don't intend to wait it out as my opinion - substantiated by the evidence - is that there were no grounds for the sanctions in the first place.
::: Which makes me wonder again about why there was such a rush to judgement which didn't allow me even one day to post a simple response on the message boards to demonstrate that I abided by the rules, instead of subjecting me to nightmarish bureaucratic procedures. ] (]) 02:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::::You're mixing up different issues. In any event, as I stated, you can easily e-mail ArbCom to appeal the block.--] (]) 02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::What information should I put in the email besides for the appeal itself? Is there a a particular format or template for the email? ] (]) 02:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::You should include enough information that the arbitrators can easily verify that the block was in error. I don't think there's a particular format for such requests, but you may want to look at ]. Since the block will automatically expire in about 16 hours, it may be easier to just wait until it expires on its own. ] (]) 03:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks. I've taken care of it. ] (]) 03:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by the ] decision ==


{{Ivmbox {{Ivmbox
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
| The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]{{#ifeq:|list|<!-- -->
|imagesize=50px
:<small>''The following list is stored at ].''</small>
|1=The following sanction now applies to you:
Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page are authorized for the following topic areas (the ''italicised'' link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision):<span class="plainlinks">* Pages relating to ] ('']'')
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ]-] and related ethnic conflicts (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] and ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to ], (] and ], )
* Pages relating to ] and ] (])
**This includes pages relating to ] (]) and ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
**This includes restoring edits by banned editors in the ] topic area ()
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to the ] topic area (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])</span>

Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page '''may''' be authorized by any uninvolved administrator, after a warning given a month prior, for pages relating to the following areas:
* Naming of disputed islands in East Asia (])|}}. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "[[Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles{{#ifeq:|list|<!-- -->
:<small>''The following list is stored at ].''</small>
Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page are authorized for the following topic areas (the ''italicised'' link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision):<span class="plainlinks">* Pages relating to ] ('']'')
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ]-] and related ethnic conflicts (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] and ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to ], (] and ], )
* Pages relating to ] and ] (])
**This includes pages relating to ] (]) and ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
**This includes restoring edits by banned editors in the ] topic area ()
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to the ] topic area (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])</span>

Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page '''may''' be authorized by any uninvolved administrator, after a warning given a month prior, for pages relating to the following areas:
* Naming of disputed islands in East Asia (])|}}#Final decision|Final decision]]" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and&nbsp;will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} -->
| Ambox warning pn.svg
| icon size = 40px
}} You're being warned about the possibility of discretionary sanctions because of the 1RR violation at ] explained above. ] (]) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:: I haven't been able to find any information about why an author and Rabbi who has published a host of information concerning Judaism -- the vast majority of which has nothing to do with the Middle-East conflict -- should fall under WP:ARBPIA. This seems like an ureasonable (and pov) attempt to pidgeonhole the individual.
:: Where can I appeal for this to be changed? ] (]) 00:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::See the notice at the top of ] about Arbcom sanctions. Shapira writes about conditions under which it is allowed for Jews to kill Palestinians. Many people would assume that was relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict. ] (]) 02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: Actually this is incorrect. Shapira's book makes no mention about neither Arabs nor Palestinians (reliable source available if needed) and is instead a set of general guidelines for all Jews engaged in warfare.
:::: And again, this book is only a fraction of his collective teachings, the vast majority of which are not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It might make him a crazy extremist (in fact it does), but it still a serious oversimplification for Misplaced Pages to define his entire persona as a "Middle-east conflict issue" by a few quotes in one of his books.
:::: Conversely there are many other religious figures that have made clear statements to that effect such as http://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad_Ahmad_Hussein who are not subject to 1RR. This article seems to be more of an exception than the rules for this type of individual.] (]) 03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::] is also very obviously within scope of ARBPIA and I have therefore added the notices to the top of the talk page to make this clearer. The lack of notices does not indicate that an article or information within that article is not covered by ARBPIA. Common sense is usually the only requirement to determine whether something is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict '''broadly construed'''. When in doubt either ask or assume it is covered. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 03:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== Appealing your block ==

Helo Wikieditorpro. You sent me an email asking to appeal your block through the ] procedures. Since I've been away from my computer, some time has passed and now there are only four hours remaining on your original block. If you still want to appeal through ], use {{tl|Arbitration enforcement appeal}} and make the appeal here on your talk page. After that is done, use {{tl|unblock}} or {{tl|adminhelp}} to get the attention of an administrator, who will copy the appeal over to ] for you. Thanks, ] (]) 15:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:I specifically sent it to you after being told that using the method you posted is "nightmarishly difficult". Despite three separate administrators telling me that I did it correctly, I was still told that I didn't follow procedures. Emailing the administrator that put the block in place is listed as the first ALTERNATIVE to the whole impossibly difficult talk page thing. Also, I quite clearly indicated above that I want to appeal as a matter of principle regardless of the amount of time left. So again, I'm asking you to please start the appeal process as per ] which lists email the administrator as an acceptable alternative. ] (]) 17:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:: I would add that it seems that none of the administrators I've been in contact with seem to under the ] process except the administrator who refused my appeal who then refused to explain how it what I did wrong, or how it should be done, instead telling me that it is "nighmarishly difficult," and that he didn't know how long it would take Arbcom to respond to my request. ] (]) 17:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::You were as early as September 2011 about edit warring on pages subject to Arbcom sanctions (see above). I hope it did not come as a complete surprise that getting into a dispute on such a page could cause you difficulties. When there is a disagreement about content, an editor does have the option of waiting to get consensus. Usually, when someone actively works for consensus they will get no problems from administrators. ] (]) 17:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Ed, I was not given due process. I've explained my view of events above and I would like the ] process to be followed.
::::The fact that I was informed by another editor once - over a year ago - does not mean that I do not deserve to make an appeal particularly as I strongly believe that I followed the rules. ] (]) 17:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Please being the appeal process as per ]. Thanks. ] (]) 17:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I would anticipate that any consideration of an appeal would check the talk page of the article as a matter of course, but just in case: please do have a look . ] (]) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Wikieditorpro, I don't find your argument persuasive so I won't lift your block myself. You still have the option of filling in {{tl|Arbitration enforcement appeal}} as I explained above. The further steps are up to you. Your block (if it is not lifted) will expire in one hour and 40 minutes. ] (]) 18:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::If it was up to me it would have been done. I left no stone unturned in trying to do it.] (]) 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::FYI, your block has expired. <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks, but I still have not been given information about the reason behind it. And despite reviewing ] and ] it still seems to me that my revert was in accordance with the rules.
:::::::::I am therefore in a situation where (according to ] at least) I misunderstand one of those rules, and I can't get any information about which one or how. For that reason (plus others) I would like to know if there is a process to reverse or overturn the block (despite it having expired) so that I can see where I am going wrong. ] (]) 23:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} You were blocked because you violated the 1RR on that page. It was a special situation where everyone was restricted to one revert per 24 hour period. Have you read ] yet? <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:Yes. But I didn't get a chance to respond, or even to appeal to a different administrator (despite spending a monumental amount of time trying to) to present my case that my reverts were acceptable as per ] and ]. So I still don't know which of those rules I apparently misunderstand, or whether an impartial administrator would agree with that claim.

:Also I don't believe that I should have this blemish on my record for an allegation that I could not respond to, and then could not appeal despite my best efforts. ] (]) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::You violated a rule that was clearly outlined on the articles talk page, which is blockable. If it were up to me personally, I would not have blocked you for that, I would have warned you, not blocked though. Having a block on our record is really not a big deal unless you are doing an RFA or something like that. Even then, if you put in enough time editing correctly the block can be easily overlooked. I would just let this go, look at this as a learning experience, move on, and go back to contributing to the project. <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::I appreciate your response and your patience. However I believe that I would learn more by going through with an appeal, including how (or whether) my understanding of the rules that I cited in my defense (primarily ] and ]) are wrong. Your statement also implies that if I don't put in enough time editing correctly, this block may not be overlooked. This concerns me as I contribute when I can, but my hands are tied most of the time. As I have the time now, I would like to go through whatever process is available both to learn as well as because I believe that despite my best efforts I was not afforded due process. ] (]) 01:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::You made made an edit to ]. That edit was reverted instead of taking the issue up with that editor or addressing it on the articles talk page, you decided to revert it. The user reverted your revert and you reverted theirs without any discussion about it. That is called ]. In this specific case the article you were editing was under a stricter policy that the normal one. You were restricted to Just one revert per 24 hour period. You can read about a ] in the subsection right below the ] subsection that you continue to cite. I would also suggest that you read ]. There is really nothing that can be done about your block, it has expired and it is over and done with. I suggest that you just move on from this and treat it as a learning experience. Again there are many users on Misplaced Pages that have been blocked there are some that are admins and bureaucrats now. If you have any more questions feel free to ask them and I will do my best to answer them. Best Regards, <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I understand that I reverted a 1RR article 2 times, and I admit that I could have handled it better. But after reading and re-reading the rules it still appears that I did not violate the rules. I am looking for an explanation as to why the following two exceptions do not apply:

:::::1) "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." ]
:::::2) "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source." ] ] (]) 05:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Wikieditorpro, this might be a great time to ]. You have asked the same questions a bunch of times now and they have been answered in every possible way. At this point you are ]. Please move on from this and go write some articles. <font color="00ff00">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Look, no one has explained why the exceptions that I've mentioned don't apply. You stated above that I didn't use the talk page, but according the rules, it's enough to specify the exception in the edit summary, which is what I did (and I also explained above why I did it that way).
:::::::I proved beyond any doubt that I reverted severe distortions. The individual who claimed that it wasn't a distortion has avoided any and all discussion on the issue by claiming that he has 'consensus'. He hasn't addressed a single point that I raised. It's not your responsibility to explain it to me, so you don't have to respond if you don't want to. But please don't tell me that it has been explained because I'm still as much in the dark as I was when I started asking for an explanation. I've got better things to do with my time than to continue asking questions that have already been answered. ] (]) 07:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

== Shapira Article ==

The answer is that the material in question was not poorly sourced, in fact it was impeccably sourced: the source is a Jerusalem Post article that quotes from the subject's own book. This is explained to you . ] (]) 05:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:It might be the answer of a person whose is blinded by their own prejudices, but it is certainly not "the answer" that any impartial individual would give. I've explained this a couple of times, yet you insist on your own version without citing any reason for replacing mine which is a direct in-context translation. ] (]) 05:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:: "blinded by their own prejudices"?? Now you just made another personal attack. Are you really trying to get blocked? There is nothing at ] that allows you to remove properly reported reliable sources. If you want to make a case on BLP grounds, ] is where to go. Deleting sourced material just on the basis of not agreeing with it will get you nowhere. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::So you are intent using your 'consensus' with Nomoskedasticity to gang up on me again instead of talkin? Neither you nor Nomoskedasticity have given ANY reason whatsoever for changing it from my initial edit. Had you reverted my initial edit to what was there before there you may have had a point. But as you replaced replaced my edit (with a complete distortion) the onus is on you to provide the reason if you are acting in good faith.
::::It is unbelievably dishonest to force me to the noticeboards to deal with a complete distortion AFTER I have already clearly explained it. ] (]) 06:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have posted here only in connection with your block. If you want to discuss proposed changes to the Shapira article, it would be better to do so at the article talk page. ] (]) 06:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::It didn't appear to me that way. Still it appears that I'm not to get anywhere by discussing this further, so I'll have to post it to a noticeboard. ] (]) 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::: "unbelievably dishonest" eh? Your charge sheet is growing. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Again with the threats? And Just a couple of days ago you were saying that I can't read, have behavioral problems, am ruining my reputation, should get off Misplaced Pages etc. The intent of your behavior towards me is quite clear. ] (]) 07:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for August 22==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

== Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala ==

Hi, I have reverted all your edits. There is no other solution but to discuss one by one your proposals on the talk page. If you have sources or a good argument for each, that can go fast but if you want to edit war, that will be longer. It's up to you. ] (]) 20:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
:Please check the talk page before commenting here as I already explained the reasoning for my edits there. It's not helpful when you revert before reading the talk page.] (]) 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

==Warning==
You need to read ] and ]. If someone deletes your message from their page, don't restore it as you did and . Don't do this again to any editor. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:] is quite clear about this:
:"Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.

:I voiced my objection.
:I don't see any rule to justify your warning particularly when the individual in question has repeatedly refused requests to engage in dialogue and has instead engaged in arrogant and condescending demands.

:If you believe that there was something wrong with my post, then this is what ] has to say about that:
:"Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."

:I would appreciate you not supporting another editor's attempts to avoid engaging in dialogue in good faith. Thank you. ] (]) 15:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

::In removing my statements in their entirety you also removed proof of a clear and obvious ] problem which has the side-effect of giving the user another excuse to avoid engaging in discussions about it. ] (]) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing the guidelines for article and project talk pages with the guidelines for user talk pages. None of what you quote above is about user talk pages. You need to look at ]: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred." Sean was free to remove your comments from his page, and putting them back was improper. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

:It wasn't Sean's own page but either way I take your point. ] (]) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
== March 2014 ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki>federal investigation which revealed high-pressure recruiting and unrealistic salary promises.<ref></nowiki>{{red|'''&#123;&#123;'''}}<nowiki>cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/education/10kaplan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |title=</nowiki>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 0, 2, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 00:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

== Death of Yousouf Al-Zagha ==


{{Talkquote|1=Indefinite ] from all pages and making any edit broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is suggested that you don't appeal for at least six months.}}
Hello, shouldn't the death of Yousouf Al-Zagha be included in the infobox for the ]? The man's death is being reported as very much part of the repercussions from the kidnappings and murders (just Google his name), thus it is included on the page, and if it is there, surely it should be in the infobox too? --] (]) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
: Hi, there's an extensive discussion about this on the talk page. The event itself that the article is about happened a couple of weeks ago. There isn't a good reason to include all deaths of other people in other incidents in an encyclopedia article concerning this event. ] (]) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


You have been sanctioned per ].
==Discretionary sanctions alert re ]==
{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:'''


This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding the ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].


You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.&nbsp;Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. 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.
}}
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Since reading of the ban issued against me it has been my intention to appeal. However business and family commitments have prevented me from doing so until now. Given the deeply flawed actions of the administrators in implementing this ban, and their disregard for universally accepted norms as demonstrated below, I intend to utilize the Misplaced Pages appeals process to the maximum extent permitted in order to draw attention to this. The ban is being appealed because of the flawed process that led to the ban. The administrators failed to adhere to the most of required in any arbitration procedure, and reached a consensus before I had even posted my reply. No respectable arbitration or administrative panel would allow a decision to stand where this principle was violated, irrespective of whether all or only some of those involved in the decision making process violate this principle. Furthermore it is obvious that not even one administrator made any attempt to critique or even verify the statements that they based their ban on, but rather accepted them uncritically and blindly. While all administrators cited Nishidani's statement, not even one of them noticed the serious distortions by Nishidani, who claimed that I had reverted vandalism per se, when the focus of the revert as evidenced by the edit summary was to revert two highly controversial changes for which he did not seek or obtain consensus. Further evidence that the administrators neglected to follow basic standards is that none of them noticed the distortions by pluto2012 and the fact that his statement was not related to ARPBIA, as well as the failure of all administrators to notice the egregious violations of Misplaced Pages rules by those who made statements, including the the egregious personal attacks against myself by the aforementioned user. The failure by Misplaced Pages's administrators to abide by universally accepted norms raises serious questions about Misplaced Pages's procedures that need to be addressed. ] (]) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | decline = Good luck with all that. Please read the topic ban notice and specifically the link that outlines the potential appeals process. Using the unblock request template is not one of them. ] ] 16:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}}


This appeal is as per stage two of the appeals process. I have already contacted the blocking administrator as per of the appeals process who attempted to shift responsibility for an unblock to other other admins, who when contacted, shifted the responsibility back to him. Given that I cannot keep running in circles I proceeded to step two. Step two directs the user to the which contains the following instruction:
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
If you are blocked → place the code: {unblock|Your reason for unblock} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "Email this user").
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->--] (]) 01:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


If these instructions are not correct in my case, please point me to the specific instruction that I ought to be following at this stage. ] (]) 04:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
== 1rr violation at ] ==
:Unless I'm missing something, you are not currently in any way blocked; you are simply topic banned. If you are being systematically prevented from editing another page, please post the message you are seeing here. ] ] 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
::I am attempting to appeal the topic ban.<br>
::This is due to the administrators' flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental principles of the process i.e. waiting for the accused to respond before passing judgement, in addition to other serious errors of judgement such as basing their verdicts on false and dishonest statements without performing any due diligence on those statements. Please advise me how to proceed with the appeal and which forum I should use for such an appeal. ] (]) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


== ] ==
Your recent edits to the page repeatedly violate 1rr sanctions on all articles related to the IP conflict.


Hi,<br>
I note that you have been for edit warring on IP related articles and warned of the ARBPIA remedies. Given the repeated violations and that the pattern of edits associated with this account is essentially a dormant account that periodically activates to edit war controversial IP topic away from ] I am going to asks for sanctions in this case. ] (]) 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
:: I did not revert anything more than once. Each of those edits are completely different edits based on completely different rationales. ] (]) 17:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692071653 -->

Latest revision as of 18:58, 13 January 2019

Welcome!

Hello, Wikieditorpro, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for helping to make a more supporting user environment for us "noobs". You rock! --monochrome_monitor 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from all pages and making any edit broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is suggested that you don't appeal for at least six months.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

Wikieditorpro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since reading of the ban issued against me it has been my intention to appeal. However business and family commitments have prevented me from doing so until now. Given the deeply flawed actions of the administrators in implementing this ban, and their disregard for universally accepted norms as demonstrated below, I intend to utilize the Misplaced Pages appeals process to the maximum extent permitted in order to draw attention to this. The ban is being appealed because of the flawed process that led to the ban. The administrators failed to adhere to the most fundamental principle of procedural fairness required in any arbitration procedure, and reached a consensus before I had even posted my reply. No respectable arbitration or administrative panel would allow a decision to stand where this principle was violated, irrespective of whether all or only some of those involved in the decision making process violate this principle. Furthermore it is obvious that not even one administrator made any attempt to critique or even verify the statements that they based their ban on, but rather accepted them uncritically and blindly. While all administrators cited Nishidani's statement, not even one of them noticed the serious distortions by Nishidani, who claimed that I had reverted vandalism per se, when the focus of the revert as evidenced by the edit summary was to revert two highly controversial changes for which he did not seek or obtain consensus. Further evidence that the administrators neglected to follow basic standards is that none of them noticed the distortions by pluto2012 and the fact that his statement was not related to ARPBIA, as well as the failure of all administrators to notice the egregious violations of Misplaced Pages rules by those who made statements, including the the egregious personal attacks against myself by the aforementioned user. The failure by Misplaced Pages's administrators to abide by universally accepted norms raises serious questions about Misplaced Pages's procedures that need to be addressed. Wikieditorpro (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Good luck with all that. Please read the topic ban notice and specifically the link that outlines the potential appeals process. Using the unblock request template is not one of them. Kuru (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

This appeal is as per stage two of the appeals process. I have already contacted the blocking administrator as per part one of the appeals process who attempted to shift responsibility for an unblock to other other admins, who when contacted, shifted the responsibility back to him. Given that I cannot keep running in circles I proceeded to step two. Step two directs the user to the Administrator's noticeboard which contains the following instruction: If you are blocked → place the code: {unblock|Your reason for unblock} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "Email this user").

If these instructions are not correct in my case, please point me to the specific instruction that I ought to be following at this stage. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you are not currently in any way blocked; you are simply topic banned. If you are being systematically prevented from editing another page, please post the message you are seeing here. Kuru (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am attempting to appeal the topic ban.
This is due to the administrators' flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental principles of the process i.e. waiting for the accused to respond before passing judgement, in addition to other serious errors of judgement such as basing their verdicts on false and dishonest statements without performing any due diligence on those statements. Please advise me how to proceed with the appeal and which forum I should use for such an appeal. Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)