Hi. I just noticed this map update proposal. The file was last updated in May 2011 and it was outdated then too, so good effort. Persuant to the query raised there, every autonomous region in Somalia is unionist. The defunct Maakhir notwithstanding (it was officially incorporated into Puntland in 2009 [1]), they all consider themselves federal states as per the country's new draft constitution. The new constitution allows for the formation of such autonomous entities under a federal government, and is expected to come into effect later on this year. Only the separatist authorities in Somaliland seek outright independence, though the territory is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. As far as the regional divisions are concerned, a reliable guide to use for the political map is this other map. It's based on another Somali Political Control Map 2011 that was published by U.S. Senator Mark Kirk. You'll have to adjust the relative proportions controlled by each administrative entity vs. Al-Shabaab according to the latest reports on the progress of the military campaign (which can be found here and here). For instance, the TFG and its Ethiopian allies recently captured the strategic town of Beledweyne in the central Hiran region from the insurgents, so this will have to be reflected in the map. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding our previous discussions I think I figured out frontlines in Hiraan, Bakool and Galguduud region. Also thanks to your help I figured out advance of TFG troops in Hoose region. However with recent advance to the Bakool region which put TFG and AMISOM troops into striking distance from capital Hudur am I right to assume that TFG troops have taken control over whole border area and linked it with their troops in Hiraan region after fall of Beledweyne? Also because of some hassle over name of towns in Gedo region I find that region most troublesome. Could you tell me if border area is under all-TFG control and if yes how much of region they control? If I have this I start working on the map (however although I tried experimenting with turning it into svg outcome is worse than it is now so I will be using photoshop). Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes and I nearly forgott. I am reading much about fighting in Bay region but the towns mentioned in the reports I am just unable to find no matter how hard I try on map. I know that capital Baydhaba is under al-Shabaab control but TFG forces made some advances on main highway but cant seem to figure out how far. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Good work figuring out the frontlines in those areas. And I admire your courage editing something like this with Photoshop. Maybe sometime in the future I can manually trace out an SVG version, but for now any update you can manage will be great. Before I address your specific questions, let me point out this site I just found that has wonderful maps of Somalia complete with many of the villages (look at the maps for individual regions): FSNAU Somalia Administrative Maps
As for Bakool, I just found an article from back in December indicating that Ethiopian troops had already entered the border region of Bakool [2], apparently without resistance. The article mentions "Ato, Yeed, and Elbarde districts" - Yeed was already in ASWJ territory, and the town of Elbarde ("Ceel Barde" on our map) is about halfway to Hiraan (Ato is slightly more inland from the border, halfway along the road from Yeed to Elbarde). The Elbarde administrative district extends all the way to Hiraan, so perhaps they are suggesting that, as you guessed, a corridor along the whole border has been opened. It's hard to be sure though. I'm also confused about what route the troops took from Beledweyne to the Hudur (Xudur) area, especially since the Somalia Report article says they took "Kesow village" [3], which I can't find on even the super detailed FSNAU maps.
Here's a (somewhat) useful map of Gedo. A few tips for the place name spellings - the letter "C" is often added or dropped at the beginning of words, X and H are often the same, and vowels can change a lot. On December 23, Somalia Report said that in Gedo Al-Shabaab only controlled "Bardhere and Burdhube" districts [4]. Bardhere (Bardera) District can be seen on the map I linked to; Burdhube (Buur Dhuubo) is actually a town within Garbahare District, which can be seen on either the linked FSNAU map or the current version of our map. Since December 23, TFG troops have entered Bardhere/Bardera District just far enough to capture Fafahdhun/Faafaxadhuun village [5], located at approximately 2° 12' N, 41° 38' E. They were also reported to have taken El-Adde "in Bardheere District", but the town of "El-Adde" seems most like to be Ceel Cadde, which is actually in Garbahare District near the tripoint with El Waq and Belet Hawa Districts. As far as I know, Al-Shabaab may still control the border area between Dhobley in Lower Juba and El Waq in Gedo, though on the maps that area looks pretty sparsely populated, so it may just be a matter of neither side maintaining any real presence there.
Where are you reading about the fighting in Bay? I hadn't heard about that yet.
Nice work guys. As far as the autonomous regions are concerned, we only list the ones that are acknowledged as such and actually have territorial control. There are various diaspora-based groups that have declared "autonomy" for their enclaves in the territory of the Somaliland and Puntland administrations and elsewhere. These almost invariably exist on paper only and have no actual authority in those regions or with the TFG; certainly not internationally. Please disregard the blogs and other such self-published sources claiming otherwise (like this one, a propaganda blog [6]). Per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:QS and WP:UNDUE, we do not base the map on them. Per WP:OI, the map needs to based entirely on reliable sources: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." So please again follow the official map above from the U.S. Senator and worldstatesmen for a reliable guide as to the administrative partition of the country. Regarding the progress of the military campaign, it will be quite challenging to try and incorporate every single town seizure since these are sometimes recaptured within a matter of days. It's therefore best to wait perhaps a week before taking into account the smaller towns; the larger ones like Beledweyne are not likely to fall any time soon so feel free to incorporate those as soon as they are reported. Middayexpress (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance, Middayexpress. It looks like EllsworthSK will be doing the actual edits to the map this time around, but I'll stop citing Somalilandpress. Note though that most of my sources come instead from Somalia Report, a serious outfit run by an established journalist. It makes sense that we shouldn't include every administration that claims autonomy, though I still think we need to display the territory controlled by factions such as the ASWJ. Additionally, I do not believe worldstatesmen itself should be used as a reference for on-the-ground control by any administration, since the site's own policy states that "Claims by dissident governments, governments-in-exile and secessionist movements are listed regardless of political affiliations." For example, I have not yet seen convincing evidence that Azania is actually administering any territory. GeoEvan (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the smaller towns. I will not include them in the map, just use their location as a frontline border. Map will be updated but take in mind that it will not be some hyper-major upgrade. Given the age of previous map and military action that took place between than and now I just had to find out who controls what but that doesnt mean that I will be including villages there especially in this kind of civil war. In Libya we somehow managed to do it but there were hundreds of journalists on the ground reporting every move of troops, area of control, battle et cetera, nothing like here. Though during Fezzan campaign not many went there and we found out that capital of district was taken about 3 weeks later and even that from 30 second long arabic youtube video and not RS. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. And thanks again for your work! I understand that this won't be a huge upgrade - I hope sometime in the next few months maybe I can find the time to recreate the whole map in SVG so that we can more easily work on it collaboratively, maybe address some of the thematic issues as well as the actual territorial captures. Do you know what Middayexpress is referring to as "Senator Mark Kirk's map"? I seem to have missed something. GeoEvan (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[GeoEvan]: This is the map I was referring to. The territory apportionment is of course not the same as it was since the start of the offensive, so it's really only meant as a starting guide. Mentioning territory that ASWJ controls is fine, as it is one of the major Somali players.
Why is that Wiki map referred to as "Senator Mark Kirk's map". Also, it gives the impression of being rather innacurate, showing Awdal State (which I thought we had consensus was probably not real) and vastly overestimating Azanian territory prior to these last few months of fighting. Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. GeoEvan (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Details on the map are mentioned in the OP. The reason why the Senator included Azania is ostensibly because it is supported by the Kenyan government, so it has some measure of recognition as an autonomous region. But as I wrote, that map's just a starting point/guide. The overriding inclusion principle should remain based on whether or not a given autonomous region is acknowledged as such and actually has territorial control. Given this, I have no objections if EllsworthSK does not include Awdal State, Azania and other similar polities, as they don't really have territorial control (Azania probably will though in a few months time, after the military offensive has run its course). Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I´m sorry for the delay. As for the map I tried to update it with Photoshop but it turned out to be much more challenging that I anticipated and even after several days of trying I couldn´t get anything decent from it. Tried several SVG convertors but all of them basicly destroyed the image. I was searching for more options but I couldn´t find any so no, past few weeks I haave been busy with personal life and left it for dead because I have no idea how to update it in current format. If you manage somehow convert it to SVG I can be more of a help, but with this...Im simply not that experienced with grafic editors. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I haven't started yet, and won't for at least a few days (possibly weeks). So feel free to make the request from the Graphic Lab. Maybe you can make it clear in the request that we don't need them to update the map, just to make an SVG version that I and the others can keep updated ourselves. Probably what's needed is just a manual tracing out of the lines (and reinsertion of the text). I know how to do that - it's just an issue of finding the time. GeoEvan (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation? The only source I see in the article says "It was not immediately clear if the rebels planned to hold the towns or strike and move on, as they have done elsewhere." Are they still holding them? GeoEvan (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the source they overran the towns without resistance and after the coup and abandonment of many nrthern positions by the military (all in the article to soruce) it seems unlikely anything would have beaten them back. As with Anefis now...also Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu maybe coming soon.
My concern is that the MNLA forces may have entered these towns and then completely moved on - if they are occupied by neither government nor MNLA forces, I'm not sure that counts as "captured". Both sources are from soon after the event, and both seem to leave open the possibility that they didn't leave behind an occupying force. I can't read French, but based on the Google translation of that source, it seems even to be implying that they quickly moved on. GeoEvan (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but for an instance like this the writ of Mali doesnt exist (which is the presumption that states have that authority). The French one is a claim by Mali itself to have lost it. (i speak a little french)Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are places in every country where the law is not routinely enforced. The issue here is whether these towns have been captured by the MNLA. If they're not holding it themselves, then what's to stop the Mali government from showing up again in a helicopter at any moment proving its ability to enforce its control? GeoEvan (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think for now, unless I find some new information, maybe I'll label Dire and Goundam as "former control". This, at least - the the rebels were in control of them at a time in the past - seems to be supported by the sources. GeoEvan (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Also Gao is taken now. Would it be OR to shade the northeastern regions of Gao and the other one (whos name is not on the map) as all the towns are in control and probs the deert around it). Aguelhok is under rebel control (though not sure when it as recaptured) [7][8]][
Also ive tried something new on the page to indicate who holds the town. Kidal is held by Ancar Dine and the others by the MNLA. Perhaps with different colours, and split colour for GAPO. Also it seems Timbuktu has fallenLihaas (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shading regions wouldn't be OR (I'm not in Mali right now), but it would be unverifiable unless we have a source to cite. Thanks for the links on Aguelhok - I wonder if it could be a mistake? I guess better go with it for now though if that's what the sources say. Indicating which group holds the town according to sources is probably a good idea, though personally I suspect there's a lot of misinformation out there. Why did you strike out "Gao is taken", and what's GAPO? GeoEvan (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kidal and Gao regions should be safe to shade...though maybe not Timbuktu as Taoudenni, Niafunke and Douentza, along with Gourmarharous have no mention anywhere (Though if Lere is taken i can only imagine...and oddly early on)
Some 2-3 sources indicated that for Aguelhok fbeing retaken, but could be just usual syndicated media nonsense, even if RS.
There are some dodgy bits on who controls what but were mostly firmed (Just queried someone about 2 cities that may now be AD)
Someone else added Gao to the map...GAPO was a typo.
I wasnt sure on the page who took Timbuktu (we can add MNLA as most sources cite their flag flying), but it seems now Kidal is under the control of AD per the article(Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Just posted a more specific source for Aguelhok on your usertalk page. Guess I should have kept it here for simplicity... :-p I'd rather stay away from shading for now - I don't have an explicit source, and I think the map of towns taken pretty much speaks for itself. I remember a source saying the MNLA claimed to be in control of Kidal when it was first taken, but I guess that could have changed. GeoEvan (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that and added, thanks. (btw- i just add the link and then run reflinks) --> Dear lord! Just went to ad it and weve all ben so stupid. It was always on the page...
Yep, MNLA took contol on the page too but then it says their flags were taken down with islamist contro'l now (=AD). Perhaps another column with "taken by" AND "held by" though only Kidal and 1-2 others were changed since the group factionalisedLihaas (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you handle the MNLA vs. AD control. I trust your judgment. Note that the two groups were reportedly separate from the beginning [10], and that the MNLA is still officially denying links to AD [11]. GeoEvan (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woops...another cockup. Seems like the govt re-retook the city the next day...still dont know when it firmed in control for the reels but latest sources says it has.
Today the MNLA said it would govern with AD...confusing that. I suspect, personally, its that society there is conservative Muslim anyways and the MNLA is the intl arm that doesnt want to get the bad press of an "islamist" group, while it also wants to cater to popular sentiment.Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...read the january bit about Niafunke...what could that mean with the benefit of hindsight? Near Lere , taken on the same dayLihaas (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to that Al Jazeera article I linked to for Aguelhok? It seems their site is down for maintenance at the moment, so I guess I'll have to check back later. GeoEvan (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says it was taken back on the 25, but sources say currently in rbel hands.
I can't find a source that clearly states Niafunke was captured, only that it was attacked. And do you have a source for Ber other than the MNLA's own website? GeoEvan (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the part of the source we're referring to for Niafunke is this line? "Les attaques de ces dernières villes inquiètent les populations de Tombouctou, une région jusque-là épargnée après la reprise de Niafunké par l’ armée régulière en février dernier." My French is not very good - does that mean that the army "retook" the town from rebel control? GeoEvan (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[GeoEvan], my own weak French has that as "The attacks on the latter cities worry the people of Timbuktu, a region until now spared since the retaking of Niafunke by the regular army last February." Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I'm always hesitant to add something based on one less-than-explicit source, but I guess this should be enough to color it yellow, now that we have this sort of mini-consensus. :-) GeoEvan (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add the city of Araouane to Tuareg rebellion map, File:Azawad Tuareg rebellion 2012.svg. It hasn't been taken yet but could you add it as a plain untaken city. It is an important city that the rebels would need to take if they attack Taoudenni in the future and it adds alittle to the empty desert part of the Timbuktu region. Spongie555 (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, Spongie. I'm not sure yet whether I want to add small settlements that haven't been the site of fighting yet, but I'll keep in mind as we go forward. GeoEvan (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are most other towns with Wikipedia pages already on the map? Because if not, including every wiki-notable town might overcrowd the map. GeoEvan (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Araouane is in the region of Northern Mali that is empty so it shouldn't overcrowd that region but maybe not including small wiki notable towns in the southern part of Azawad might prevent overcrowding of the map. Spongie555 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have some criteria less arbitrary than that for adding towns to the map. And note that even the fact that it's not on the map indicates that it hasn't been taken by the rebels. GeoEvan (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for pointing that out to me, RJFF! I see they also posted the Azawad conflict map with a silly credit to "Blogspot" (the hosting domain for my site) rather than a proper link to my site or to the copy on Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia, just like they did for my Yemen map awhile back....but I'll take what I can get. ;-) GeoEvan (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tables of control of cities and towns during armed conflicts
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of active rebel groups, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Upper Nile and Unity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, GeoEvan. 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.
Hello, GeoEvan. 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.
Hello, GeoEvan. 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.
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, GeoEvan. 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.
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.
Greetings. When inserting non-English language text in articles, please encase that text in {{lang}}. Not doing so causes accessibility problems (and doing there are several other benefits to using it, documented at Template:lang#Rationale). Glades12 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm afraid I don't know which edit you're referring to. I don't recall inserting any non-English language text into any articles. GeoEvan (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An "editor" who apparently believes Galland didn't insert the orphan tales, but "restored" them from "earlier European versions" from the "original Arabic text" has been attacking the lede of this one. Please, I think I need some help maintaining the facts here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a little too much on my plate right now to do the necessary research support you on this right now, unfortunately. Maybe you could request to get the page protected against IP editors? GeoEvan (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
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.
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! 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.
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
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.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
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.
