User talk:Poshseagull

Welcome

Hello, Poshseagull, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

SMasters

Happy editing! SMasters (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Lead sections

Hello, regarding this edit, according to the manual of style, lead sections are supposed to summarise the main points of the rest of the article, so repetition is inevitable and to be expected. In fact in a longer, more well developed article, you would find more repetition than there currently is at St Matthew's Church, Millbrook. --BelovedFreak 12:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why do we need the information in the introductory paragraph to be repeated virtually verbatim under "Assessment and administration" in a relatively short article? If that premise were to be followed slavishly, which mercifully it isn't, we'd have some very long (and boring) articles. But it's no skin off my nose in this instance. Poshseagull (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Hi, I notice you have been changing nationalities from British to English. The UK passport says British, therefore that is what wikipdeia should stick to. As an aside, you seem to have been marking these changes as minor - which they are not. Uvghifds (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and I've also changed some from British to Scottish. Will you be changing Nicola Sturgeon's nationality to "British"? Good luck!Poshseagull (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uvghifds's assertion as to what "wikipedia should stick to" is a personal opinion but not supported by WP:UKNATIONALS. You should both, however, familiarise youselves with it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Nicola Sturgeon it is clear that she regards herself as Scottish, through her activities with the SNP. However, a lot of the articles you have changed have been Conservative MPs who are renowned unionists and as a generalisation regard themselves as British. It is my personal belief that the article should put British in the infobox and then the 'chosen' nationality in the prose, however - the guidelines are clear that an unreferenced change should not be made. I have reverted your nationality edits back to earlier on this year, but I will not go any further back. Uvghifds (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


OK, OK, you change "English" (or "Scottish"?) to "British" and in most cases I'll do the reverse. But remember, there is a Scottish National Party, a Six Nations tournament at rugby, and that England has a national football team. Having lived in Australia I'm well aware of the England=Britain=England fallacy, and I gather that in the World Cup the American newspapers reported that USA had drawn 1-0 with Britain, owing to a blunder by the British goalkeeper. But make no mistake, England does exist. It has its own football, cricket and rugby teams, its own flag and its own national church. I know very few English people who refer to themselves as British first and English second. I don't. Poshseagull (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Miranda Hart because you made an unreferenced change. Incidentally, I am from England but regard myself as bring British in the first instance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you regard yourself as British first and English second. That's fine by me. But Miranda is English. When I meet people (mainly Americans) who refer to me as "British", I reply, "English actually". Is that a problem for you? English people are de jure British, but they are no more British than the Scots and Welsh are, and have every right to call themselves English. "Britain" is a mere geographical and political entity.
Will you now be changing all refernces to "English", "Scottish" and "Welsh" people to "British"? In some cases, eg Tony Blair (Irish mother, born and educated in Scotland, grew up mainly in England), British might be appropriate, but not manyPoshseagull (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on User:Uvghifds's point. We don't have English passports, for example, and those coming to this country don't apply for English naturalisation. If you look on any official document you'll generally see the country named as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and don't forget we have a British government. I have no problem with how you refer to yourself, and as for changing all English, Scottish, etc, articles, that would make me as bad as those who changed them in the first place, and only leads to petty edit wars and such. I also agree that we should use British in the infobox and the chosen nationality in the lede. Maybe one day England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will become countries in their own right, at which point we can think again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple either and it certainly isn't about passports, which are a much more recent phenomenon than nationality. What's more a British passport has some pretty prominent references to the EU, e.g. at the top of the inner right page, above British references, but I don't think you'd regard this as defining your nationality as European. Australians (e.g. relatives of mine) passports were British until the 50s at least, maybe 60s but they were still Australians. Also read at least the lede to Nationality. Don't get countries confused with nations with nation states. E.g. England and Scotland are the former two but not the latter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article actually raises more questions than it answers, and you're right about the European thing. What concerned me I think was that I got the impression articles were being changed without discussion because the user identifies as English - something that shouldn't be happening on a wholesale basis. I have to say I don't know whether Miranda Hart identifies herself as English or British, but perhaps we shouldn't change articles without knowing for certain. I also find the assertion that there are very few cases where British nationality applies to be a difficult one to pin down because surely it's a matter of personal opinion for the individual concerned. A Tory MP or hereditary peer would probably identify as being British, whereas there's a strong chance someone representing the SNP or English Democratic Party wouldn't. Of the people I know I think there's generally a 50/50 split on how they identify themselves. Not sure what the national picture is, but I noticed there was a question relating to national identity on this year's census so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find out. And interestingly, it should be noted that England itself is a composite of several nations. But at the end of the day there is no definitive answer to this quandry, and this debate will go on and on. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much agree with that. I'd say it's difficult to make a definitive case either way, for a preference for British or a preference for English/Scottish etc. but it is definitively a waste of everyones efforts if we're warring, flip-flopping between one and the other. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and having seen the extent to which this takes place I wonder why people aren't doing something a bit more constructive. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Richmal Crompton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. A blog is not considered a reliable secondary source. The provenance of this quote is questionable, and I dispute that Bergoglio actually said or meant what was written about him, so therefore I am requiring that solidly reliable sources be used to support these assertions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lecture me in this way. And I find it most disturbing that you wish to remove uncomfortable quotes from articles. Or are you accusing a Bishop of being a liar and/or Anglican Ink of publishing falsehoods? And who are you to dispute what Bergoglio said? Why is the quote "questionable" and why do you dispute it?

I presume that you will now be doctoring the article on Pope Fransis to remove Bishop Venables's quote? Poshseagull (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "want to remove uncomfortable quotes", I am demanding solid sourcing for a contentious assertion about a living person, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. That is Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it, you are in the wrong place. And the only quote I can find in the Pope Francis article is direct from the mouth of Venables, which is a world of difference: this is something he said that is not contentious, the quote you propose to add is something he allegedly heard Bergoglio say which is contentious. The source is still questionable and I have rightly challenged it there at the article, but it deserved wholesale removal from the Ordinariate article because of the nature and provenance of the other quote. Elizium23 (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have now had the nerve and audacity to question the Anglican Ink quote and/or Bishop Venables in the article on Pope Francis. I am seeking advice on how to complain about you. If we allow people to delete quotes and challenge sources they don't like, then it undermines the neutrality of Wikipedia.Poshseagull (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pope Francis, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you have any "prefectorial" role here, self-appointed or otherwise, but you are certainly culpable yourself in that you are attempting to hide, even rubbish, a sourced bit of information on the views of Pope Francis. Please stop. Continuing to remove such material may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Poshseagull (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. I don't know where you got that idea. I told you that you can put the quote back in. I gave you a source for it! Why do you keep accusing me of these things? The only thing I object to is the sourcing, which is not acceptable for a WP:BLP. Ask anyone else here, they will tell you the same thing. Elizium23 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alice Bacon, Baroness Bacon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Normanton
Rachel Reeves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alice Bacon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geoffrey de Freitas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haileybury (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reginald Dorman-Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandhurst (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Williams (archbishop of York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin McWilliam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Bird (bishop) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • He was [[Suffragan Bishop|suffragan]] to the [[Bishop of Llandaff]] (titled [[Bishop of Penrydd]] (then spelled Penreth), after Penrydd in [[Pembrokeshire]]<ref>[http://

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Old Wykehamists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Sewell. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Rice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Albans School. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added...

Hallo, just to let you know I've added a ref for you. I mention it as the list had been totally unreferenced, and we were all relying on the quality of the bluelinks. However, most of those were more or less unreferenced as well! (Ahem.) So, to cut a long story short, I've added some hundreds of refs to the list, now not far off completion. As there are in fact some hundreds more possible list entries, and I don't specially wish to chase around after all of those as they are added dropwise to the mix, I'd be glad if you could add-and-cite as you go along. I think the result will be worth it; at least, it looks better to my current Wiki-adapted aesthetic. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Hallo, thank you for your addition of "Olaf Caroe, writer and colonial administrator" to List of Old Wykehamists. Could you possibly add a citation for this entry to demonstrate notability and that he was indeed an Old Wykehamist? With many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Straw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood School. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester College, A Register 2014

Sorry to trouble you, but the references you've added to the List mention "Winchester College, A Register 2014" which isn't yet in the list of sources, and I've not been able to find it elsewhere. Could you possibly add it to the list of sources, or let me have the publication details (authors, full title, publisher, ISBN) so I can add it? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was published by Winchester College in 2014. The editors are PSWK Maclure and RP Stevens. Poshseagull (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that when we have a register or other book in the Bibliography, we don't need to repeat it, but can simply use the short form like "Badcock, 1992. p. 382", "Maclure, 2014. p. 333", "Lamb, 1974. p. 123" and so on. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Phil Jagielka, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it! To talk about "Manchester, Greater Manchester" is mere pedantry, and to change it to simply Manchester is certainly not "disruptive editing". There is only one Manchester in the UK so the "Greater Manchester" is superfluous. Come to think of it, why not say that Phil Jakielka was born in "Manchester, Greater Manchester, England, United Kingdom" Or "Manchester, a large city in north west England"?

Don't threaten me, please. I'll wait a day or two before removing the "Greater Manchester" which is quite unnecessary. OK? Poshseagull (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Burgess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Devonport. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wes Morgan, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to you with regard to Phil Jagielka under the heading April 2015. There is only one Nottingham in England. Or perhaps you'd like me to add the words England, United Kingdom after Nottinghamshire to avoid confusion? Poshseagull (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Douglas-Home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of school information

Hi Poshseagull! I have reverted your edit to Robin Lane Fox where you have deleted additional information about the school he attended. It is good practice to include more than just the name of the school that someone has attended, because it allows readers to know something about that school without needed to click the link and move off into another article. Not everyone has fast or unlimited internet usage. Perhaps you were assuming that every knows about Eton? While it is likely that people within the UK know something about the school, the English Wikipedia is used by people from all over the world who more than likely won't know. I hope this clarifies why I reverted your edit, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a brief look at your contributions, this removal of additional information appears to be a common practice for you. Hopefully you will now understand why it is included. Additionally, the inclusion of county and country following the mention of cities in the British biographies is because (as above) not everyone reading a biography about a British individual will be British. To use an example, Eton is near Windsor, Berkshire rather than Windsor, Ontario which is likely to be what North Americans think of when they see Windsor. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I appreciate your civil tone unlike that of Matty. But in fact practice varies. Some entries might refer to someone being educated at Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford, others could be more long winded. And if you take my example of Phil Jagielka, Matty tried to refer to "Manchester, Greater Manchester". And for Wes Morgan, "Nottingham, Nottinghamshire". Now we could get quite ludicrous and say, "Nottingham, Nottinghamsire, a city in the Midlands of England UK, known for bicycle manufacture and as the home of Robin Hood". It's a question of degreePoshseagull (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It is true that things vary article to article; as would be expected with the large number of editors on Wikipedia. A sentence such as "educated at Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford" is comparable with something like "worked at MacDonalds and Tesco", in that they are both very short and not particularly informative. They should be expanded if possible with details such as when and where. For example, it would not be clear to an American reader than Eton College is a school rather than a university, and hence the "is a public school in..." that I add to the sentence.
I agree that something like "Manchester, Greater Manchester" is over the top but "Manchester, England" isn't. The example of "Nottingham, Nottinghamsire" isn't over the top as there are a number of places around the world called Nottingham, as seen at Nottingham (disambiguation), and it needs to be clarified to readers which one is being talked about. One must remember at all times, that the English Language Wikipedia is being read by people all over the world. To someone from the UK it is obvious which Nottingham is being talked about, but someone living in the USA may not. When it comes to place of birth, one should go further and state which country the person was born in; therefore, "Nottingham, Nottinghamsire, England" or just "Nottingham, England", would be preferred. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of nit-picking, would "public school" mean much to Americans? I believe that in America such institutions are called "prep schools".
That's true, though if they click the link then it would become clear; that's the importance of making sure you're linking to the right page. Also, one would hope that someone would have the sense to consider that it might mean different things in different countries. Explaining every concept is a rabbit hole that no one needs to go down. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Poshseagull. 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

Hello, Poshseagull. 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.

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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Poshseagull. 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)[reply]