Note: Comments through July 2009 pseudo-archived by deleting, available in history.

I am "semi-retired" - making edits when I look something up and I think I can improve it, but little beyond that.

Martinp (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam[edit]

Extended content
{\| class="wikitable"	Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a mistake?[edit]

On the Flagged Revisions poll, you wrote As we grow bigger and bigger, the principle of "do no harm" absolutely has to take second place to "do no harm" ... am I reading it wrong, or did you mean to put something else in place of one of the "do no harm"s? —Soap— 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will fix. Martinp (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about Brews.[edit]

Collapsed discussion from March 2010
I think you speak rationale sense there. I'd love to see some sort of a compromise. In this though people are in one side or the other, both think that the others conduct is detrimental to wikipedia. The amazing part about this is that they completely ignore this is controversial and refuse to discuss. Hopefully someone will finally take a minute think about things and ask questions or give answers god forbid. Sorry to rant on your page but you had some good insights. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's not that hard to find out what happened to Brews ohare: you can review the entire case in about 2-3 hours, if you skim. It begins on the speed of light talk page, where you can see Brews ohare arguing that the speed of light, which is defined to be exactly 299,xxx,xxx meters per second, cannot be a physical constant and an exact value at the same time. If you define the speed of light to be exactly 299,xxx,xxx meters per second, that means that it makes no sense to say that you measured the speed of light. This is a true and minor point, understood by every physicist, but I never thought it was too interesting or important. But this claim raised annoyances, so they demand sources. He begins sourcing his sections, and making the explanations more verbose, until they turn into over-sourced nonsense (this happens often). The unweildy text is deleted by many editors, and he becomes irritated that the more he sources the less it is accepted (this also happens often). He explains the point patiently again and again to each editor on the talk page. David Tombe joins in the discussions, and Tombe has some nonstandard views on physics. Basically, he sticks to late-nineteenth century physics, and does not accept anything past 1900. He also has some ideas about how the lumineferous ether works, and the lumineferous ether is no longer mainstream view. Tombe is sympathetic to this distinction, because he views the speed of light in the 19th century way--- as the speed of waves in the ether--- not in the post-relativity 20th century way as a conversion factor between units of space and time. The arguments go on for about 3 months, filling up the talk pages with walls of text, then the ArbCom case is opened by the other editors on speed of light. The ArbCom case is against Tombe and Brews both, and one of the claims is that they are pushing fringy relativity denying views on speed of light. This is just untrue, Tombe never pushed his own views in the articles he edited, and Brews doesn't even share these views! Other editors from other pages join in, in particular from wavelength, where Brews ohare was trying to insert a very valuable discussion of carrier frequency and modulation to the page. Brews and Tombe are accused of CIVIL violations, soapboxing, and disruption. Tombe's views on physics are brought up as evidence against him (even though there is no evidence that he ever tried to push his views on wiki). The walls of text generated on the talk pages are brought up, and the editor from Wavelength joins in to say that Brews is disruptive there too (although there Brews is 100% right). The issue looks clear to anyone who doesn't understand science: two crackpots are trying to take over some physics pages. But this is not at all what was going on. Tombe and Brews were arguing valid (if minor) points, not crackpot points. The only disruption is that they argued and argued past the point where it was clear that the other editors weren't going to budge. But they got topic banned from physics. Then Brews gets justifiably annoyed with this, and tried to fix the policy pages so that it wouldn't happen again. He edits WP:ESCA to support some standards for science pages. The same editors that were hounding him before went to Tsnkai and got a WP namespace ban, so he wasn't allowed to post to policy pages. The namespace ban was pushed on the pretense that Brews was violating his physics ban, which was untrue. Then came the enforcement: Brews edited a math page which could have some physics relevance, so bang, he gets called for enforcement. The editors in this case (reasonably) conclude that math doesn't violate the physics ban. Then comes another enforcement action on god-knows-what (I forgot), and that one is let slide too. This is where I entered. I read the original case, decided this was a travesty, noticed that several of the editors that asked to get Brews banned were no longer active, and asked the rest to undo the ban. I then went to ArbCom with an appeal that had pretty solid support. You can find the text of the appeal here. Brews' issue on speed of light has been raised by at least 5 different editors since (including myself). It is long overdue to undo the damage of this ban, and I believe that the best thing to do is to would to restrict all editors who opposed Brews from bringing up AN/I or ArbCom complaints against others, since they have no sense of proportion.Likebox (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Brews ohare appeal This appeal failed because most assembled spent no time understanding the matter, and simply vented their irritation over even being asked to do something. Thank you for taking a more considered approach. Brews ohare (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed discussion from March 2010

I think you speak rationale sense there. I'd love to see some sort of a compromise. In this though people are in one side or the other, both think that the others conduct is detrimental to wikipedia. The amazing part about this is that they completely ignore this is controversial and refuse to discuss. Hopefully someone will finally take a minute think about things and ask questions or give answers god forbid. Sorry to rant on your page but you had some good insights. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that hard to find out what happened to Brews ohare: you can review the entire case in about 2-3 hours, if you skim. It begins on the speed of light talk page, where you can see Brews ohare arguing that the speed of light, which is defined to be exactly 299,xxx,xxx meters per second, cannot be a physical constant and an exact value at the same time. If you define the speed of light to be exactly 299,xxx,xxx meters per second, that means that it makes no sense to say that you measured the speed of light. This is a true and minor point, understood by every physicist, but I never thought it was too interesting or important.

But this claim raised annoyances, so they demand sources. He begins sourcing his sections, and making the explanations more verbose, until they turn into over-sourced nonsense (this happens often). The unweildy text is deleted by many editors, and he becomes irritated that the more he sources the less it is accepted (this also happens often). He explains the point patiently again and again to each editor on the talk page.

David Tombe joins in the discussions, and Tombe has some nonstandard views on physics. Basically, he sticks to late-nineteenth century physics, and does not accept anything past 1900. He also has some ideas about how the lumineferous ether works, and the lumineferous ether is no longer mainstream view. Tombe is sympathetic to this distinction, because he views the speed of light in the 19th century way--- as the speed of waves in the ether--- not in the post-relativity 20th century way as a conversion factor between units of space and time.

The arguments go on for about 3 months, filling up the talk pages with walls of text, then the ArbCom case is opened by the other editors on speed of light. The ArbCom case is against Tombe and Brews both, and one of the claims is that they are pushing fringy relativity denying views on speed of light. This is just untrue, Tombe never pushed his own views in the articles he edited, and Brews doesn't even share these views! Other editors from other pages join in, in particular from wavelength, where Brews ohare was trying to insert a very valuable discussion of carrier frequency and modulation to the page.

Brews and Tombe are accused of CIVIL violations, soapboxing, and disruption. Tombe's views on physics are brought up as evidence against him (even though there is no evidence that he ever tried to push his views on wiki). The walls of text generated on the talk pages are brought up, and the editor from Wavelength joins in to say that Brews is disruptive there too (although there Brews is 100% right). The issue looks clear to anyone who doesn't understand science: two crackpots are trying to take over some physics pages.

But this is not at all what was going on. Tombe and Brews were arguing valid (if minor) points, not crackpot points. The only disruption is that they argued and argued past the point where it was clear that the other editors weren't going to budge. But they got topic banned from physics.

Then Brews gets justifiably annoyed with this, and tried to fix the policy pages so that it wouldn't happen again. He edits WP:ESCA to support some standards for science pages. The same editors that were hounding him before went to Tsnkai and got a WP namespace ban, so he wasn't allowed to post to policy pages. The namespace ban was pushed on the pretense that Brews was violating his physics ban, which was untrue.

Then came the enforcement: Brews edited a math page which could have some physics relevance, so bang, he gets called for enforcement. The editors in this case (reasonably) conclude that math doesn't violate the physics ban. Then comes another enforcement action on god-knows-what (I forgot), and that one is let slide too.

This is where I entered. I read the original case, decided this was a travesty, noticed that several of the editors that asked to get Brews banned were no longer active, and asked the rest to undo the ban. I then went to ArbCom with an appeal that had pretty solid support. You can find the text of the appeal here.

Brews' issue on speed of light has been raised by at least 5 different editors since (including myself). It is long overdue to undo the damage of this ban, and I believe that the best thing to do is to would to restrict all editors who opposed Brews from bringing up AN/I or ArbCom complaints against others, since they have no sense of proportion.Likebox (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare appeal

This appeal failed because most assembled spent no time understanding the matter, and simply vented their irritation over even being asked to do something. Thank you for taking a more considered approach. Brews ohare (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"principle of diversification"?[edit]

In this edit you refer to the "principle of diversification" without explaining what that is. Could you

Explain what it is
Cite a reliable source; and
Link to a Wikipedia article that explains it?

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, apologies. I have only now after 3 months logged on. I notice that others have opined on this and linked my use of the term to another article - not an article I know, but in my hiberation the wisdom of crowds has kicked in. I will try to revisit as soon as I can. Martinp (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paprykarz szczeciński[edit]

On 3 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paprykarz szczeciński, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Polish canned fish paste paprykarz szczeciński was inspired by an African dish? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thank you. They lost me a few times, but we got there in the end. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

I saw your request. I appreciated it. I was responding, but for reasons I would prefer to share privately, that was taking some time.

I'd appreciate you contacting me via email, as there are some subtantive editorial issues I would like to ask your advice about. Unfortunately, my efforts have triggered the scrutiny of a handful of unfair wikihounders, I"d be grateful if i could have that advice outside of the scrutiny of those individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, after some unpleasant interactions, I have stopped corresponding with wiki contributors by email. That is why I no longer have email enabled. However, since you have asked to do so, I'll find some way to set up a temporary email address and get back to you. Martinp (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Address martinp dot wikipedia at gmail dot com created. Please leave me a note here when you send me email, since I will not check that email box regularly. Martinp (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll leave a note on your talk page, telling you when that email should have arrived -- probably by noon tomorrow. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: ACE Aviation Holdings; Sata (food); En papillote; Saint John Airport; Seasons 52; Trace metal; Apple sauce; Zambezi Escarpment; Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport; Sarah (chimpanzee); Gaspé Airport; Coot Club; Coots in the North; Gelang Patah; Viva Riva!; Baie-Comeau Airport; Édith Butler; Next of Kin (nonfiction); The Arthur Ransome Society

Cleanup: Osama bin Laden; Andrew Moss; Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Merge: Human language; Covariance; List of protected areas of Laos
Add Sources: Gatineau Hills; List of Boeing 757 operators; Jack Layton
Wikify: Ambilikile Mwasapile; Fuzzy-trace theory; Foreclosure consultant
Expand: Conservative Party of Canada; Russian Sky Airlines; Munich Airport

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Martinp. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA: thank you for your support[edit]

Martinp, thank you for your willingness to support me in my recent RfA. Your willingness to register your late-breaking support was heartening to this candidate. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage "Good Article" review[edit]

Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language." EEng (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Wishing you all the best . . .[edit]

Merry Christmas, Martin, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Martinp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Martinp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

template[edit]

I really like your suggested template at ANI, . Please be bold. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, @DGG:. I'll let the discussion at ANI play out to what seems to be an inevitable no-consensus non-close, and then (assuming I have time) I'll try to do so. Martinp (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Select Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_06uOkt24YlsghnL&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Martinp. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Thanks for supported my recent, albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE for Mandar Agashe[edit]

Hi, sorry to disturb. Saw your comment on the discussion but I wasn't sure if it was ok for unregistered ppl to respond on there. I had made a draft article for the subject with the WP:THREE links, but I can't find it anywhere now. These are the links I had used:

Extra ones that also seem credible as per wiki's reliable source policy:

I believe most of these were already there in the article that was undeleted after i raised the issue at deletion review, and i volunteered to add a few and expand the article and related articles as I saw fit after going down a rabbit hole on google search about the subject and connected topics. Hope i did nothing wrong contributing. You may delete all my edits if they were against wiki policies.

2405:201:1006:E03A:C011:E66A:E9B2:7EDC (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2405:201:1006:E03A:C011:E66A:E9B2:7EDC:. Feel free to participate at the deletion discussion; it's better there than here where only I will see it. And appreciate your contributing here in general! Of the top 3 sources above (haven't looked at the rest), the 1st and 3rd seem not very independent. As the main sources for an article, and to demonstrate "notablity", wikipedia tends to look at sources which provide significant coverage (which these do!) but are also genuinely independent in their coverage of the subject. These 2 to me feel (after a quick read) like "our reporter sat down with X and here is what X said", and will be discounted on that basis. Please do go ahead and perhaps choose 2 substitute ones from your list and post to the deletion discussion! Martinp (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinp: Ok, thanks for the feedback. I believe these can be used as the next best sources:

There are also google book sources I found and added to the article that seem to be book versions of some magazines:

There also are books that have the subject's biographical and family data included in them (detailing his birth, family and ancestry):

Can you go ahead and post my suggestions to the discussion on my behalf? I don't want to make any mistakes like i did with my posting on deletion review (like that other user said). From my experience using wikipedia for all these years is that veteran editors are quite unwelcoming to casual readers and anonymous contributors like myself (which is apt given the standards that make wikipedia so great). But There is too much wiki editing politics involved from all the other discussions i have read all over this website and i would like to quietly stay out of it, please. Thank you for your help. 2405:201:1006:E03A:958:862E:E5FF:275A (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but please participate in that discussion yourself. These sources may well be sufficient, or may not, it is best if you present them yourself. You may find it easier to register an account, though it should not be a requirement to participate. This individual/topic is outside my area of expertise and I cannot judge the independence of sources, and it is inefficient for other users to be posting stuff by proxy when there should be no impediment to you participating. Martinp (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will do as you insist. Thanks for the kind feedback and encouragement. 2405:201:1006:E03A:DC9C:8154:FAE9:3D2C (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the sources I have discussed here with you on the deletion discussion. Please check, thank you 2405:201:1006:E03A:DC9C:8154:FAE9:3D2C (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see that the article was kept. Thanks for all your help, I trust that wiki editors will now take care of improving the article - I'm wikilinking the article to other related pages before I take my leave. I might even take a crack at creating an article in the near future, hope I can reach out to you for help then. Thanks for everything. Bye! 2405:201:1006:E03A:C035:93BE:1C57:9BEE (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notification[edit]

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]