Responding to your questions here, I have limited experience with AfC, but here's my take.
It is true that AfC is a volunteer project, and that nobody is required to review specific articles. But the same is true for Wikipedia itself. Frequent AfC reviewers are refusing to 'look the other way' for the same reasons that other Wikipedia editors refuse to look the other way whenever they notice inapropriate content added to the encyclopedia.
AfC has a recurring issue with backlogs. FloridaArmy, it is claimed, submits enough bad articles to single-handedly contribute to this backlog. It's not just the articles per day, but that the articles are often resubmitted over and over again with little change, and that his overall article acceptance rate is low. There seem to have been very similar issues two years ago with new articles and AfD. The requirement to go through AfC was intended to help FloridaArmy learn what constitutes an acceptable article, but it seems to only have shifted the disruption from AfD to AfC.
As JzG points out, this pattern of behavior has all the hallmarks of someone attempting to appropriate the furor over recent events for personal gains, in order to have these restrictions lifted. But FloridaArmy doesn't seem to realize that fighting the restrictions by causing more disruption won't get them lifted, and his frustration may be causing him to pick fights in order to to avoid having to take responsibility. I've tried talking him out of it, but he's too far gone. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of your message for me is, "Frequent AfC reviewers are refusing to 'look the other way' for the same reasons that other Wikipedia editors refuse to look the other way whenever they notice inapropriate content added to the encyclopedia."
It doesn't seem like it would be looking the other way because either another reviewer would probably decline a deficient article submission or it wouldn't be reviewed. In either case it wouldn't go into Wikipedia, unlike the example you gave of adding content to Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that FloridaArmy's original complaint was that his AfC submissions weren't being reviewed. So far, nobody has spoken up in defense of his many rejected drafts. If anyone was willing to put up with his submissions, he wouldn't have been able to make his original complaint. Intentionally allowing his drafts to languish indefinitely would cause permanent backlogs and provoke more of the same complaints. Note also that the rationale given at the original AN/I case was that FloridaArmy was to be restricted to AfC until "they understand our inclusion criteria and are able to work to it." The fact that any inappropriate content would be contained within AfC and away from the mainspace was just a bonus. Editors at the current AN/I case are claiming that FloridaArmy's many inappropriate submissions and resubmissions are disruptive, and disruptive editing isn't allowed anywhere, even at AfC. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be FloridaArmy's original complaint. Those submissions were reviewed and declined at that time. Am I missing something? Bob K31416 (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, it would be more accurate to say that their original complaint was that their article's weren't being accepted. The rest of my comment still stands. Allowing them to continue submitting drafts, only for them to be ignored or rejected, would cause permanent backlogs and provoke more of the same complaints. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would probably work out. Reviewers would still review the FloridaArmy submissions that are worthwhile, and some editors would review some of FA's submissions that are not so much. Also, FA may realize that it's not worth the effort to submit deficient articles that probably won't get reviewed. Anyhow, I don't have strong feelings about any of this and I'm just trying to help. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Cardozo
Nice, I see you found a bigger version of the photo. I'm wondering why you added it to en.wp rather than commons? That article you found it in is interesting, too. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥23:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my only thought was that it could be added to Wikidata / other wiki more easily from Commons. But given the unclear claim (status unassessed) made at LoC itself, I was hesitant. (I also didn't want to seem to be stealing your work.) It's good to see you back, by the way. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥16:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little something to acknowledge your edit. It is refreshing to collaborate with an editor who understands WP:NPOV, and is able to contribute in a neutral, dispassionate way that still includes all relevant views.
I can only apologise again for the latest gaffe. I am not doing it intentionally, and not even sure how it is happening other than when editing using my mobile phone. Koncorde (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob K31416: Hey bob, I saw that you sent me a helpful google search in the george floyd conversation on the tox report. In order to include that, I need supporters, if you would show your support, to either side, supporting or not supporting, I'd be grateful. There's a guy called Crescent77 who already showed his support so i suppose you could put it there. thanks, JazzClam (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read and revert the material that was deleted for trolling on the talk page of the WP shooting of breonna taylor. I am a longtime anon IP editor and too frequently face contempt for it. It was very nice and extremely thorough of you without solicitation to read the material and revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:18A0:C2:6FF0:31DF (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
Hi, Thanks for coming over. The "get down"s didn't seem like orders to Bryant but orders to the woman in pink so that she wouldn't get shot. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with interactions. Say, there is a strong Coulomb interaction between the two 1s electrons in the ground state of He, which doesn't prevent the formation of the singlet state in full accordance with the Pauli principle. But in fact, it's not related to my point. How do you call statistics of interacting fermions? "Approximately F-D"? Let's not invent new definitions. F-D statistics is about fermions. B-E statistics is about bosons. The numerical results are sensitive to the model assumed, of course (interacting or not interacting particles, etc). Evgeny (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If/when you finally agree, there are similar statements in the B-E and M-B statistics articles that I believe should be modified, too, for consistency. Evgeny (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evgeny, Sorry to keep you hanging for so long but there are some aspects that are unclear for me. Here's some of my preliminary thoughts.
Let me start by giving my definitions of the term single particle state. (I didn't find any good ones in the literature.) One definition would be a state that is normalized to 1. Another is the state of a single particle system.
You mentioned the singlet state of helium. That's a two-particle state. It originates from using hydrogenic single particle states to start with, i.e. non-interacting electrons, and then the Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) is applied so that the electrons have opposite spin. The e-e interaction is then introduced to obtain 2-particle states and energies. Although the PEP is applied to the original non-interacting electrons in single particle states, it's not clear to me how the PEP can be used for the case of 2-electron states of interacting electrons since obviously more than one electron occupies the 2-electron state. It apparently works by considering the 2-electron state to be comprised of single particle states of non-interacting electrons, which isn't true if the significant e-e interaction is taken into account. Hence this is unclear to me. Anyhow, these are preliminary thoughts and I'm not sure if I will have anything more to say, although I'll think about it now and then. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It apparently works by considering the 2-electron state to be comprised of single particle states of non-interacting electrons, which isn't true if the significant e-e interaction is taken into account." Well, there are no "single particle" states in nature. Any state of N identical fermions is antisymmetric (see Slater determinant), interaction is irrelevant. (Strictly speaking, one must use a single fully antisymmetric W.F. to describe all electrons in the Universe.) BTW, in the case of helium, the interaction is by no means small: assuming non-interacting electrons, the ground-state energy would differ by ~40%. I guess you are confused by construction of multi-particle state using single-particle W.F.'s as the basis. It's wrong to think of the combined state as consisting of the basis states. It's just a convenient mathematical notation—the convenience is in using the perturbation theory when the interaction is small. Again, the only physically relevant bound on the multi-fermion state is that its phase flips when any two particles are swapped. From this follows PEP (and vice versa). Evgeny (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the question of whether FD statistics requires negligible mutual interaction between particles, it apparently doesn't when the PEP is expressed in terms of the requirement of anti-symmetry. So the removal of the subject phrase re negligible mutual interaction appears to be correct. Also, it looks like the same can be said for BE statistics when its situation is expressed in terms of the requirement of a symmetrical wave function with respect to interchange of any two particles. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evgeny, Although FD statistics and BE statistics may not require negligible mutual interaction, the FD distribution and BE distribution do. I mention this because the BE Statistics article currently treats the BE distribution and BE statistics as meaning the same thing, unlike the FD Statistics article, which treats the FD distribution as a result of FD statistics for the case of negligible mutual interaction. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, what's the problem with my changes? I explained the reasons in the edit summaries. Do you believe the new version is worse (in which respect)? Evgeny (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're on increasingly thin ice with your [[WP:BLUDGEON behavior at the Donald Trump article. A knee-jerk revert to a link that's just been challenged is even worse. You know perfectly well that the version you reinstated has not been discussed and found consensus on talk. I suggest you take a break and try to break what appears to be an obsessive over-involvement with your promotion of your views -- views that several editors have explained to you were previously considered and rejected. Please do search the talk archives. Learn why you're failing instead of digging in deeper. the WP:ONUS for inclusion is on you, not on others. I suggest you self-revert your reinsertion of that link. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with closure of a discussion thread, you should go to the proper channel for review of the close. You should not be extending and attempting to relitigate closed discussions. If a close is indeed improper, that view will be upheld upon review. You are moving close to the point where some editor is going to invest the time to bring your case up for a TBAN from politics articles. SPECIFICOtalk18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not post a message in a closed discussion after it closed. If your complaint is about posting a message outside of a closed discussion, I know of no policy or guideline that prohibits that. If you think otherwise, give a link to the policy or guideline. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Bob. It creates problems for the Wiki software when an editor mixes bullets with colon indents within a thread. We do use bullets in some situations such as a poll or RfC, but in ordinary talk threads it not only clogs up the servers but also comes off as a form of SHOUTing. Needless to say, your opinions are your own and editors do not change the substance of another's post except in exceptional circumstances, but this was just a formatting issue. SPECIFICOtalk00:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that your complaints have any basis in fact, but feel free to give a link to an authoritative source that supports what you say. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:SPECIFICO, I don't find your messages here useful so I request that you stop posting messages on my talk page, unless they are required notifications of actions according to Wikipedia policies. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, in this edit at Donald Trump, you posted a link to NOTFORUM. The post if @Valjean: to which you were responding did not fit the link you cited, as it concerned editing process and procedures, not personal opinions. Did you mean to post in a different position on that page? If you intended NOTFORUM to be a rebuttal of RFCBEFORE, that is incorrect. Please ensure that you understand applicable policies and guidelines before citing them on talk pages. SPECIFICOtalk21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Slatersteven said it best. Somebody launch an RFC or move on. I recommended one, but I won't be launching it. Better that somebody else do so. I've launched so many over the years, that the RFC office (if there is one) would be getting tired of seeing me ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You choice, but I will report you if you continue, then we can let the admins decide if it is unfair, that is my last word here, next time its ANI. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, concentrate on the proposed Electoral box discussion. Like everyone else, your input would be appreciated on that proposal :) GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, please give a careful look at the policy section you linked. The message of "local consensus" is that local consensus is not a valid reason to disregard WP policy. It is irrelevant to the first sentence in your post, but if anything it invalidates much of Bob's position at that article page. SPECIFICOtalk17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
That is the same, nonspecific complaining of "bias" that we always get from these IPs. They never bring up anything specific, or any reliable sources. It is not constructive. But go ahead, engage in a dialogue if you wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was going to make a comment but the IP's post was removed again. Their geolocate appears to be a school, so they may just be a student, like they say. Not very nice treatment in that case. Here's what I was going to say: There does seem to be a lot of Trump bashing. One of the problems with that, is it ironically obscures his actual faults. Some people reading this article may simply put it down as misleading and not useful in forming an opinion about Trump, and consider it like an attack campaign ad. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan LaQuey, Thanks for your comment and feel free to make further comments here or elsewhere on Wikipedia, if you like.Really? You thought that reopening that section and leaving that comment was helpful? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but so are other editors. If you think a discussion is a waste of time, there's a simple solution for you. Don't participate. And I think other editors should have the right to decide whether or not to participate for themselves. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, please don't do this. There is absolutely no justification for spending editor time responding to the same uninformed complaints over and over again, never with any change to the article. I get that you think the article is biased, and the response page applies equally to you.
Any user, including you, is welcome to suggest a specific, policy-based improvement to any part of the article. That initiates a discussion which may yield a consensus for a change to the article. But general complaints about bias are not useful.
SPECIFICOarchived the thread 11 hours early, in direct violation of current consensus #13, despite clear guidance in the close statement, thereby greatly reducing the amount of time for the OP to see the reply. Both of your actions could be seen as disruptive, but perhaps SPECIFICO might not have done that if you had just left it alone. ―Mandruss☎20:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think my actions were quite good. Editors there shouldn't be afraid of feedback about the article. As I wrote, editors aren't required to respond. BTW, what percentage of readers would you guess feel the same way as that editor? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, maybe roughly the same as the percentage of Trump supporters who don't understand Wikipedia policies? The point is that it's an irrelevant question. We are governed by our policies, not by popular vote. And this has exactly nothing to do with editors being "afraid of feedback". ―Mandruss☎20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to fear from uninformed readers. It just wastes editor time, period.they would just ignore the comment if they simply didn't like it. Not so much. Many editors can't resist replying, particularly those who haven't been around to witness the history at that article. And then we're off and running with yet another pointless exercise in futility. That's why we close after the first reply. ―Mandruss☎21:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline that supports preemptive closing. If you think there should be, you might suggest that at the appropriate page. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and common practice grant a certain amount of discretion to local editors. Otherwise policy would have to be twice as large. For example, there is no policy supporting the current consensus list, but it was implemented and survives because a majority of editors have thought it's a good idea. Among the article's editors, you are clearly in a small minority (minority of 1?) on this issue, and you have been consistently throughout your participation there. ―Mandruss☎21:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Non-specific bias claims are never useful or constructive; article bias is not a popular vote. When they show some respect, #61 provides for the standard response and 24 hours to see that. When they are openly insulting to Wikipedia and its volunteers, they don't deserve that much consideration. While this doesn't meet the strict definition of trolling, please don't perceive it as some kind of legitimate "freedom of speech" dissent. ―Mandruss☎18:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I think comments like that from time to time are a good reality check of how some readers view the article. One thing to consider regarding the credibility of the article, and media in general, is that with all the anti-Trump information presented, Trump is still leading in polls. Seems like the majority of people take with a grain of salt the presentation in the media. People may not like misrepresentations made by politicians, but they may think even worse about misrepresentations made in the media and this article because they feel their trust has been betrayed. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but article talk pages are not for discussion of such matters. You can start at WP:NOTFORUM, which is Wikipedia policy. The scope of your musings is far greater than the Trump article, which automatically disqualifies them at the ATP. Take it to Village Pump if you like. ―Mandruss☎04:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "That's fine, but article talk pages are not for discussion of such matters." — I made the comment only here in response to your message. Maybe you should just leave. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were right
You were right. "Verifiability, not truth" is Orwellian.
Another editor corrected you by saying "the slogan isn't verifiability is truth, it's verifiability not truth". Suggesting that, because the "not truth" slogan isn't syntactically identical to The Party's slogans, you didn't have a point.
Predictably, the slogan "verifiability is truth" is now used unironically on Wikipedia. I wrote an essay recently in which I said "war is peace, freedom is slavery, and verifiability is truth". I was doing some research on the history of the re-definition of truth on Wikipedia, and I was stunned to see that someone else had made the observation, all the way back in 2011. Things have gotten a lot weirder since then. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Philo, you do realize the history of the phrase "verifiability, not truth"? It means something like this: "Wikipedia prefers to use verifiable and reliable sources rather than an editor's subjective idea of what is 'truth'." Such ideas of "truth" are as varied as the number of editors we have and are pretty much useless for article content here, so we ignore them, although discussion of them on talk pages is generally allowed. In spite of a seeming disavowal of "truth" in that statement, we do want our content to be factual and "true". We are not oblivious to the value of truth, but an editor's idea of what is "true" is not relevant for article content. It is what verifiable and reliable sources say that counts here. If what they say aligns with one's ideas of what is true, that's nice, but, again, that consideration is not relevant for an article. Save it for an essay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You write: "the slogan 'verifiability is truth' is now used unironically on Wikipedia." Seen in light of its original meaning, that simply means "Wikipedia values content based on verifiable reliable sources more than content based on an editor's opinion of what is the "truth". It's really that simple, and I'm sure you will agree with that. An encyclopedia based on "the truth" is something like "Conservapedia", The Encyclopedia for Conspiracy Theorists. It would be a religious work.
It's an application of the scientific method which finds many parallels in our PAG. We don't really "know" what is "true" without evidence, and Wikipedia doesn't really "know" whether something is a fact or an opinion without verifiable reliable sources telling us. For our purposes, sources=evidence. Properly-sourced content is as close to truth as we can get. Our articles are never finished. Like the scientific method, the door is always open to new facts and corrections of previous beliefs, and we do change and alter content accordingly. We just need verifiable reliable sources to impel us to do that, and, human nature being what it is, that doesn't always happen instantly or easily. Unusual claims need unusual sources, and change is never easy. We, not sources, are Wikipedia's weakest link. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an oldie. I recall there was an RfC that consisted of hundreds of editors and the closing was plagued with disruption. That was another example of how a group of editors took over a Wikipedia page and it took an action of biblical proportions to make a simple edit that was contrary to the group in power. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is any documentation that he said anything racist? He fought many years ago to allow black people and Jewish people into his mar a lago private club when Palm Beach was very selective about allowing these 2 groups of people being allowed in clubs. He has done many positive things for black peoples. Where’s the so called proof of that remark ? Amiestew2468 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
