User talk:Retro/2018

Welcome!

Hello, E to the Pi times i, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Robotic edits of "the fact that"

Please don't edit robotically, as you are doing now. Instead, take the time to consider what the best possible phrasing is for each specific circumstance. You are bound to run into trouble if you edit as if one size fits all.

You're also not editing the resulting sentences after removing "the fact that" to make them grammatically correct. Because it will be time consuming to look at every one of your "I shall purge..." edits, I shall now proceed to revert them. You're welcome to make them again when you do so in a thoughtful way, and correct the resulting sentences.

Also, you don't need to number your edits. If you click on "Contributions" at the top of your Wikipedia page, and look at the bottom opf the resulting page, you'll find a link to an "Edit counter", which you can use any time to see how many edits you have made. This number is available in other places as well, such as on the front page of your "Preferences".

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to revert them, at least diff them first. I'm not editing them robotically, as you may think, although perhaps I should be more careful. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "diff them first"? If you mean look at them, no, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to assume that there are enough errors in the batch (as in the handful that I looked at) to make it worthwhile to roll them back. The ball is now in your court to take mnre care. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The diff button takes only 5 seconds to click on and review. While some of my edits may have been grammatically dubious (I realize now), many of them were carefully considered, and taking into account the context, where I spent 2 minutes on them. But by the same token, undoing your edits for the non egregious changes should not take me too long. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The way I spend my time is my own concern. I have over 6,000 articles on my watchlist, and I'm working on re-building several articles right now. I don't have the time to hold your hand and babysit you. You should have taken the time yourself, when you made the edits, to see that they were improvements, and not force other editors to spend their time to fix your errors. 06:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have chosen to continue to edit robotically, changing 18 instances of "due to the fact that" into "because" in 25 minutes. As I look into my crystal ball, I predict that your time on Wikipedia will be short, and unhappy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily harsh. A few things:

• the way I spend my time is my own concern: And I respect that. Note the "But by the same token...", where I apply my logic to myself. I was simply hoping for some respect in my edits (for example, you could have told me that I was creating ungrammatical sentences, given me an example of one, and given me one chance to fix it myself. I would argue mass-reverting for "the greater good" misses a teaching opportunity, but we may diverge slightly in the lessons we think should be learned from this experience, which I will address in another point): but I can understand the mass rollback because I'm not an established editor on this account. I used to have an older account for Wikipedia, so I had a memory of being logged as an older user (which doesn't necessarily mean I'm better for it, but at least it establishes a basic experience. I may not look it, but I know quite a bit about editing Wikipedia; I often read the guidelines and templates (usually to the detriment of the free time I have to actually edit.))
• chosen to continue to edit robotically, changing 18 instances of "due to the fact that" into "because" in 25 minutes: I am not editing "robotically", because I am not doing a simple find-and-replace. I am reading it in the context of the article, and adjusting accordingly. In most cases "due to the fact that" can be substituted with "because". In cases where it cannot, I have either skipped the article, or made more nuanced edits (for example, this, this, and this.) If you feel there is a case where "due to the fact that" does contribute meaning, we can discuss that, but in most cases, it is just overly verbose. Also, edit rate should not be the metric; quality should, especially since submission rate is not necessarily equivalent to edit rate.
• not force other editors to spend their time to fix your errors: Which is why I would have preferred you had given me a chance to fix my own mistakes, instead of reverting indiscriminately. But what's done is done.
• your time on Wikipedia will be short, and unhappy: This makes me laugh a bit. I'll be on Wikipedia till the day I die (or it does.) But my perspective is short. I've only been editing wikis since 2014 (Wikipedia since early 2015, apparently) Compared to 2009 2005*, when you started, I am humbled.

Anyway, I'm not trying to destroy this wiki or edit for glory. My only hope is to try to improve it and myself, and hopefully contribute in some small way to this massive project which I believe to be one of the most important internet projects. If you have any other suggestions or critiques, I am willing to listen to them. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, your research is not good. I've been here since 2005, not 2009, [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

...

That doesn't change my point. You could perhaps make an argument that I'm a poor researcher (which I do not believe myself to be, but it's hard to speak from the position of error and actions speak louder than words) because I didn't do extensive research on the year your original account was created, but the exact date wasn't an important point, more the recognition of experience. Anyway, I think this thread is ready to die, unless you have anything else you'd like to add, Beyond My Ken. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This guy shouldn't be rolling back good faith edits in this fashion, regardless of their usefulness. Primergrey (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primergrey: While I do agree with you, I must point out that WP:ROLLBACK says that rollback may be used "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Whether Ken's actions were justified depends on your definition of "widespread": I did 16 original edits of "the fact that". There's also the context that I had immediatly prior done ~75 changes to a boilerplate descriptions of lists prior to that, so it set off alarm bells for Ken. However note also, in my changes from "due to the fact that" -> "because", he did not rollback (or even revert) them. I think this has been resolved in a satisfactory way (minus some civility, but life goes on) and it is probably best to move on. --E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No doubt. Primergrey (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: NP mag

I'm sure I have it, although I have put all of my NPs into storage, so I will have to retrieve from the storage unit. Will let you know when I go over there. Andrevan@ 02:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LBGT films list lead

Template:LGBT films list lead has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bot?

Are you running a bot/fully automated account? 24 edits in a single minute seems to be quite a lot, especially considering they are page moves. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: No, I was actually editing manually, but I had them lined up in a queue. E^pi*i batch is my semi-automated account. If I were to do a mass page-move like that again, I would do a bot request, because it was actually quite annoying to do it manually. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Since you brought this to my attention, I think restricting mass page moving is a common sense extension of WP:MASSCREATION, and I have edited the policy accordingly to reflect this. Thank you for pointing out this; it's definitely useful to reflect on for future semi-automated or automated edits I may do. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 20:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page edit

Please spare me your Wikilawyering lecture. I stand by my action: if they're blocked, they're fucking blocked. --Calton | Talk 03:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, what the hell was the point of going back through edits from January? Don't you have paper clips that need sorting? --Calton | Talk 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: My problem is that you failed to evaluate the context of the IP editor's comment. Constructive comments are useful regardless of the source. And I'm not wikilawyering, I was explaining how the edit was not justified based on the original edit summary given. WP:TPG also supports this, with " The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

In regards to the paperclip comment, I was going through the page history for another reason, and noticed a harmful use of strikethrough. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are goddamned well wikilawyering -- or maybe I should say wikiLECTURING -- about things you couldn't possibly understand, which are none of your business, and pointless busywork under the best of interpretations. You are neither qualified nor have any authority -- moral, supervisorial, knowledge-based, or experience-based -- to leave smarmy warnings for me. Continuing to assert such authority -- especially absent any evidence for it -- is going to ensure a short-ish career on Wikipedia, as this place has a low tolerance for people who parachute in and claim to know how things work better than the editors with years of experience. --Calton | Talk 16:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Making significant changes to major policy pages in the name of simplification is disruptive. Please stop making these unilateral changes across many major policy and guideline documents or you may be blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Really? Calling this edit "disruptive editing"? Users are allowed to edit policy pages, and it does seems you have not actually evaluated my edit beyond seeing that a large piece of content was changed. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing specifically says: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward... building the encyclopedia." My edits satisfy neither of the basic criteria in the lead of the policy on disruptive editing. Also see WP:BEBOLD. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock|"TonyBallioni never mentioned "I consider reversion of a major change to the notability policy that took place without discussion to be administrative in nature" in their one reversion. Editing policy pages in not against the rules. A block is premature in any case, given the limited amount of discussion before bringing this to ANI. I only got a warning without any specific response to my talk page section, or discussion of my reply to the warning. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)"}}

@Boing! said Zebedee: Please at least reply to this. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I also had no opportunity to respond to the accusations at ANI. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Being administrative in nature means that I felt I would have been justified blocking you on my own without discussion, but because I am cautious, I preferred having others discuss the matter. Boing! blocked you for edit warring on one of the most significant guidelines we have. There is nothing wrong with bold edits to policies and guidelines (I do it myself probably more than most.) There is an issue, however, with consistently making changes to some of our most significant project space pages without discussion that are almost universally reverted. That is disruptive editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also even in article space if you are reverted by a user you take your justification to the talk pages, you do not revert back (yes we all do it, but it is still not right).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Edit warring is forbidden, and that should be obviously so on policy pages where you do not get to change them unilaterally. If you agree to not edit anything other than that WP:ANI report until this issue is resolved (with any admin empowered to reinstate the block should you make any other edit outside that remit), I am prepared to suspend your block pending its outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Unblock conditional is agreeable. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: My main problem with this block is that I did not actually edit war (Wikipedia:Edit warring says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.; I did one revert.) As to the accusations of disruptive editing, I was drafting a response at ANI when I was blocked. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unblocked as per agreed conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeatedly breaching the terms of your unblock. You agreed to Boing! said Zebedee's offer to unblock you "if you agree to not edit anything other than that WP:ANI report until this issue is resolved", and then after being unblocked you went ahead with these edits [2] [3] [4]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request E^pi*i batch

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/E^pi*i batch as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

@Xaosflux: I meant to close that request as no longer valid (I intended to convey that in this comment). I realize that bot-flagging an account that also did non-automated edits would be problematic, so I'm sorry I did not close the request earlier. I had assumed it might be closed after my AWB RfP but I should have been more explicit. If you could close the request for me, I would appreciate it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do, marking as withdrawn. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI Response

Pinging relevant ANI participants: @TonyBallioni, Amorymeltzer, Boing! said Zebedee, EEng, Bbb23, Ivanvector, Beyond My Ken, Isaacl, Jbhunley, Tide rolls, Davey2010, Power~enwiki, and Courcelles:

---

First, I will agree to a voluntary restriction on directly editing policies and guidelines (i.e. I would still be able to comment on P&G talk pages and obviously be able to reference them in other discussions). I was initially hesitant because I made many noncontroversial, currently retained edits to MoS, but when I look back at edits like this (reverted shortly after; not previously mentioned in this ANI discussion.), I realize I am indeed inexperienced and deserving of restriction. I will note I have discussed my edits when they are reverted; I was not trying to sneak changes in.

Regarding the time I have taken to respond, I addressed it in this comment. My delay was not intended as an "attempt to improve [my] chances of not being sanctioned by putting some distance between the complaint and the action to correct the behavior". Instead, I needed some time to honestly reflect on my previous edits. If I had insincerely agreed to community sanctions, the underlying problem would not be acknowledged, and acknowledgement is the first step towards making permanent changes to behavior. It's not always easy to admit one's mistakes.

Regarding my block evasion: I explained this when I said "I only request that I can edit the talk space because I'd like up to tie some loose threads that I left hanging.". The violating edits consisted of finished a help request I was in the middle of addressing, a ping fix of a discussion from the previous day, and giving my revised thoughts on a discussion I'd started the same day. I did not continue my disruptive edits to P&G, which was the area of contention for the ANI discussion; I was simply carrying out my queued changes so they would not be lost or obsoleted; the first edit was a courtesy to the affected user. I was technically wrong to do so, and I acknowledge that, but I do not think this merits an indefinite block by reasonable standards. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

By being unable to stick to your unblock conditions it looks like you lost the chance to avoid having a ban imposed at ANI. From the comments following your re-block you will be lucky to avoid an indefinite term block and only be topic banned. The Wikipedia editing community, at least the community at boards like ANI, tend to be forgiving of many, many things. Saying you will follow a restriction, like an unblock condition, and then breaking that agreement, in your case within hours, is not one of those things. It very simple — when one promises something, one abides by that promise. When one fails that, further promises are of no value. Jbh ^Talk 02:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: The thing that irks me is that the original ban was carried out very quickly, with a one-sentence warning (besides the boilerplate). The original reason was edit-warring, for one revert. I see nothing in the policy on edit warring to say that one revert to a policy edit is block-worthy, and I did discuss the other reverts without counterreverting. ANI is stressful and tends to balloon issues. If I had reinstated a P&G edit in the three intermediate edits or done anything contentious, I could understand the black and white promise is a promise sentiment, but the spirit of the restriction to solely ANI editing was to ensure the issue got addressed. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So you knowingly violated your unblock conditions and thought it was okay because you decided that they weren't needed anymore? No. It doesn't work like that. You don't get to promise something in order to get unblocked and then decide not to follow it because you think the original block was bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you do not understand is that you do not decide what rules you follow. That is not how the Wikipedia, not how the world works. That you are trying to justify breaking your promise with BS like "if I had … I would understand…" indicates to me that you probably are not compatible with this project. I had just written a comment on ANI about how I thought you should not be indef blocked from en.wp. Now I have to go strike it. Jbh ^Talk 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Eye pie, take my advice and take a break for 48 hours. Then come back to your computer and ask yourself if there's anything you should have learned or anything you want to say. EEng 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, @EEng:.

@TonyBallioni and Jbhunley: Fair enough. Breaking that promise was indicative of a greater personal flaw, and that can be seen in a parallel way to my editing philosophy in the policies and guidelines: both incorrectly justify immediate solutions over more careful consideration. That offers another lens of self-evaluation, and for that I must thank you both. I do not think changing myself is impossible, but the community will decide as they may. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing yourself would be a complex transformation. EEng 10:08 pm, 12 April 2018, last Thursday (1 day ago) (UTC−5)

I appreciate the comment. I'm didn't mean to real you into a sticky situation in editing by proxy (though it's clearly permitted under these circumstances). I intended to modify those edits earlier, but I had forgotten about it until now, when your reverts popped up in my notifications. I will take care of it as soon as I am given leave to do so, so you don't have to worry about editing by proxy concerns. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to talk page revert

@Bbb23: You said "you can't edit, directly or *indirectly* while blocked". Blocking policy actually says: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Note the unless, which applies quite clearly to this situation, as I will explain in my next sentence.

A few hours ago, Mojoworker was independently reverting my edits as a maintenance task to fix the notes (this diff and this diff). I did not message them to influence their edits, I was simply ensuring a straightforward maintenance task got done, which ironically enough, involved reverting my own edits. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't quote policy to me. The quote applies to Mojoworker, not to you, and is in the context of reverting edits of blocked socks. Also, it's standard practice for administrators not to permit such behavior from the blocked editor, although not all administrators do so. As you can see, I do. This is my only response on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm heading out to dinner and a movie, but I've had your edits on my todo list since I asked you to fix them. I'd prefer you fix them, but I haven't lost track of them. I just saw you were blocked and looked a bit into the backstory of the situation you've gotten into. A bit of advice: many editors at the noticeboards have lost patience with the crapload of bad-faith editors causing disruption, and they don't like having their time wasted. I think you may be a little over-zealous, but from what I've seen of your edits, I believe you've been trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. In the future, proceed more slowly and deliberately – really plan and think through what it is you're doing with your edits. For now, some honest contrition might go a long way in restoring the rest of the community's faith that you're WP:HERE for the right reasons. Don't blame others for your mistakes, man-up and own them and tell us what you've learned from those mistakes, why you won't repeat them in the future, and why a block isn't necessary to prevent you from disrupting the project. I've found that the interactions between you and I at TfD have been positive and constructive. I hope in the future you can find some articles or projects on which you can work collaboratively with some other editors – that's something that I've found here that's truly rewarding. Good luck. Mojoworker (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. I'm didn't mean to real you into a sticky situation in editing by proxy (though it's clearly permitted under these circumstances). I intended to modify those edits earlier, but I had forgotten about it until now, when your reverts popped up in my notifications. I will take care of it as soon as I am given leave to do so, so you don't have to worry about editing by proxy concerns. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you really think that after violating your unblock terms you should be requesting proxy edits? Who are you, Wiki-Pharoah? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

...though it's clearly permitted under these circumstances No it isn't, as the policy YOU QUOTED demonstrates: that exception as stated applies to the editor doing the proxying and says nothing about requestor. --Calton | Talk 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Pinging relevant ANI participants: @TonyBallioni, Amorymeltzer, Boing! said Zebedee, EEng, Bbb23, Ivanvector, Beyond My Ken, Isaacl, Jbhunley, Tide rolls, Davey2010, Power~enwiki, Courcelles, Ansh666, Calton, and Hut 8.5:

---

Something's been gnawing at me, and I just realized what it is. I haven't properly apologized for my actions or even acknowledged my actions.

First, I have been careless. This showed through my policy and guideline editing, my comments at ANI, and my violation of my unblock terms. I deserve both blocks for this carelessness and lack of respect for this communities' norms.

I'm also sorry for edit-warring multiple policy pages by counter-reverting reverts. These pages are some of the most important pages on the wiki, and one cannot rely consistently on policies and guidelines if an edit war is occurring. I was overzealous and impatient in my editing.

A TBAN is obviously imminent, and I deserve it for my actions. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow up

And you're going to do WHAT going forward? --Calton | Talk 03:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned

You are now indefinitely topic banned from policy and guideline pages and their talk pages as well as simply discussing changes to them anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This is the result of this discussion. You can appeal this sanction at WP:AN after at least six months from today. The community will evaluate your editing in other areas during this time if/when you appeal the sanction; therefore, my recommendation to you is to find some part of the encyclopaedia that interests you and work on those articles to show that you can edit collaboratively as well as follow our policies and guidelines. This sanction is also logged at WP:EDR. —SpacemanSpiff 11:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Modified from "...discussing them..." to "...discussing changes to them..." as this should not prevent you from discussing the relevance of a particular policy or guideline with respect to an article [5]. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Country

I've copy-edited the whole article. I added one {{citation needed}} template and noticed four more—one in 'Audio', one in 'Reception' that I added, and two in 'Re-releases'. The article is currently a GA but may not strictly meet the GA criteria. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, E to the Pi times i. 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)