Hello Stonkaments,
Since you have been commenting on the new FAQ for the race and intelligence talk page, there are two things about it that I'd like to make sure you're aware of.
First, I'd like to ensure you've noticed the closed discussion here, initiated by Sesquivalent, about the FAQ misrepresenting its sources. Like your own earlier attempt to raise a similar issue at the NOR noticeboard, this discussion was swiftly shut down, and the same presumably will continue to by done to any future discussions that raise similar issues. So I doubt it would accomplish anything for you to bring up this issue yourself; I just want you to be aware of it.
Second, I'd like you to be aware of the origin of the theory (as presented in the FAQ) that the field of psychometrics is covertly racist, and that this explains why in that field there is more published scholarship in favor of the hereditarian view than against it. Sesquivalent called this a "talk page theory", but its origin was not on talk pages of Wikipedia articles. It originated at RationalWiki, as a parody of left-wing views introduced across multiple articles there with the intention of discrediting the site. I know this because I was one of the people who helped add this parody material, although several other people also were involved.
At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from " Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".
The goal of this project was to demonstrate how RationalWiki would allow and promote the most paranoid, defamatory conspiracy theories as long as they supported the site's ideology. Judging by some of the reactions we received, such as this and this, we succeeded at demonstrating that. What I want to emphasize here is that these claims about contemporary researchers in the field of psychometrics come exclusively from the parody material we added. It isn't difficult to find legitimate sources (such as this one) that make this argument about an older generation of psychologists such as Rushton who were involved with the Pioneer Fund. But with respect to the claims of covert racism against modern hereditarian psychometricians (such as Haier, Rindermann, Warne, etc.) who've never indicated any interest in far-right political causes, these claims originate from our parody material at RationalWiki and from nowhere else.
I don't recall you having been involved in any of the earlier discussions about this issue, so I'd also like you to be aware of something about my own relation to this material. I agreed with Kirkegaard and the other members of his Slack that RationalWiki was a disreputable website, and that the project to discredit it was a worthwhile endeavor, but I never supported their subsequent project to add the same type of material to Wikipedia. My preference was, and still is, for Wikipedia to be an actual encyclopedic website. However, at this stage I don't deny the logic of their plan. As can be seen from the above linked discussions at Twitter, there were quite a few people who paid attention to our trolling project at RationalWiki in 2018-2019, and who understand that this claim about modern psychometrics was always intended as a parody of left-wing extremism. Now that this parody argument is unironically being repeated at Wikipedia, it makes a very strong point about how vulnerable Wikipedia is to being manipulated by right-leaning trolls if they adopt the rhetoric of antiracism.
Incidentally, SMcCandlish is another user who is aware of the parody (and probable parody) material that's been added in this topic area, so I encourage you to discuss it with him if you're interested in more details. 2600:1004:B147:4751:3970:E21B:3D74:B13A ( talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC". It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that." The RFC he's referring to is the one that occurred on the article's talk page, [3] about whether the hereditarian view is fringe or not. So in other words, it is the clear consensus of the community that the question of whether the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe or not, and the question of whether the unverifiable material must be included, can't be treated as two separate questions. As I mentioned in my last comment, the admin who shut down the discussion at NORN gave a similar explanation.
@ DGG: Sorry for the ping, but it's been nearly a month and we haven't heard anything from you. There seems to be a clear consensus here that the amendment request needs to be made. Is that something you're still intending to do? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 22:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I've come to think that the most fundamental issue underlying these various debates is a deep misunderstanding of science itself, so I'm wondering if this is where we should focus the ArbCom discussion. General overview of the argument as follows:
Editors (and commentators off-wiki) frequently appeal to scientific consensus, or "Science", but fail to consider the conditions necessary for science to reliably generate trustworthy results. Humans are inherently biased, and generally function more like self-serving politicians than scientists (no offense!). There's little reason to trust scientists more than others in general, except because of the power of the scientific method (just as we don't blindly trust journalists in general, but trust reliable sources specifically because of their process of fact-checking, vetting sources, etc.). The scientific method can and does reliably generate trustworthy results, but only when two very important conditions are met:
We shouldn't expect science to produce trustworthy results in the absence of either of these two conditions. COVID-19 lab leak theory fails #1, as it revolves around hypotheses that are largely unfalsifiable at present (same goes for debates such as the future impact of global warming). And the race and intelligence debate fails #2, as the scientific community is seemingly quite hostile to falsification of the null hypothesis. That is to say, none of these issues has reached a scientific consensus based on a genuine application of the scientific method, and so we can't reliably trust that consensus. Trusting the "Science" in these areas amounts to blind faith in the trustworthiness of scientists in general—which is basically the exact opposite of proper science.
I think this also sheds some light on the issues we've seen of editors misrepresenting the scientific consensus, because I think they're directionally right. They're right in the sense that the scientific consensus would like to say, for example, that there's no evidence of a genetic component behind racial IQ differences. And it's just one small step to say that's what the actual scientific consensus says—never mind a few troubling facts to the contrary.
But, is Wikipedia equipped to handle this problem? Is it possible to recognize the limitations of scientific research without overreaching into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? How do we avoid giving undue legitimacy to all the psuedoscience that gets rightfully dismissed due to WP:Academic bias? Analyzing the validity of a scientific consensus is obviously extremely fraught and controversial—any time the scientific consensus gets called into question, it inevitably provokes insinuations and accusations of sweeping "conspiracy theories". But nevertheless, a rational bayesian analysis really should discount scientific consensus views that are unfalsifiable, and it should take into account the stifling effects of a scientific community hostile to heterodox views. Could we develop a Reliable Science guideline in the same way we have guidelines on reliable sources? Or could we update WP:FRINGE policy to account for this somehow (maybe some guidance to actually place more weight on inconvenient findings and unpopular views that come out despite hostility)? Stonkaments ( talk) 01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I do hope for change in these areas--I do not expect it to come quickly, because I think the participants in WP, just like people in the world generally, are not actually prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but rather look for evidence to support their own preconceptions.Truth will ultimately prevail, it always does; but it will likely require a lot of patience and understanding to get there. Starting another RfC so soon may do more harm than good. Stonkaments ( talk) 19:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk) 23:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)This is an obvious case of edit warring, and that's why I blocked you. However, you've been alerted to ArbCom's ruling on BLPs, on fringe science, and on COVID, and I would not be surprised if the next admin who looks at your recent edits imposes a sanction. And judging from other notes here, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be an even more comprehensive review of your edits. Drmies ( talk) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You've built up a substantial track record first of wasting time of other editors in talkspace pushing points of view that are clearly not going to persuade many, and second making edits that are the wrong side of the policy boundary in articlespace. I've seen this kind of behaviour many times over the years and you are probably aware that you are on a trajectory that generally ends in a permanent ban.
I have the impression that your basic motivation for being on Wikipedia is not to be a troll. If you actually want to be constructive, don't wait to turn things around, but decide to work with your fellow editors, not against them, when you find yourself holding a minority viewpoint. If you did this, the very fact of being contrarian would amplify the value of your contributions here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Stonkaments ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wasn't edit warring, and have no intention to do so. I only attempted to change the link once (since being unblocked), and it was in the context of adding significant new relevant material to the article [14], which I thought it would lead to broader acceptance and was therefore worth attempting (per WP:CYCLE). I refrained from making any more edits after being reverted, and will continue to refrain from further edits until gaining consensus on the talk page. Stonkaments ( talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leprosy in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Hansen's Disease Museum. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Stonkaments. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Barbecue Hall of Fame, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ideanomics, Inc. Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Stonkaments, I know you're already aware of 3RR. Here's a non-template heads up that you're up against it right now at Nicholas Wade. Even though I disagree with you there, I think your first reversion was a sensible one, and your point about GR's edit changing more than just the lead was a good one. If it matters, I don't think that counts as a reason to not count it in the 3RR calculus. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Thanks a lot for writing the criticism section! It is very comprehensive, and much more neutral than what I could've done. Kudos! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 21:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
Looks like someone sneakily removed any negative info on The Metals Company article. I’m going to be offline for a while. Thought I’d let you know as you did such extensive work on it. Best, Thriley ( talk) 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Stonkaments,
Since you have been commenting on the new FAQ for the race and intelligence talk page, there are two things about it that I'd like to make sure you're aware of.
First, I'd like to ensure you've noticed the closed discussion here, initiated by Sesquivalent, about the FAQ misrepresenting its sources. Like your own earlier attempt to raise a similar issue at the NOR noticeboard, this discussion was swiftly shut down, and the same presumably will continue to by done to any future discussions that raise similar issues. So I doubt it would accomplish anything for you to bring up this issue yourself; I just want you to be aware of it.
Second, I'd like you to be aware of the origin of the theory (as presented in the FAQ) that the field of psychometrics is covertly racist, and that this explains why in that field there is more published scholarship in favor of the hereditarian view than against it. Sesquivalent called this a "talk page theory", but its origin was not on talk pages of Wikipedia articles. It originated at RationalWiki, as a parody of left-wing views introduced across multiple articles there with the intention of discrediting the site. I know this because I was one of the people who helped add this parody material, although several other people also were involved.
At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from " Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".
The goal of this project was to demonstrate how RationalWiki would allow and promote the most paranoid, defamatory conspiracy theories as long as they supported the site's ideology. Judging by some of the reactions we received, such as this and this, we succeeded at demonstrating that. What I want to emphasize here is that these claims about contemporary researchers in the field of psychometrics come exclusively from the parody material we added. It isn't difficult to find legitimate sources (such as this one) that make this argument about an older generation of psychologists such as Rushton who were involved with the Pioneer Fund. But with respect to the claims of covert racism against modern hereditarian psychometricians (such as Haier, Rindermann, Warne, etc.) who've never indicated any interest in far-right political causes, these claims originate from our parody material at RationalWiki and from nowhere else.
I don't recall you having been involved in any of the earlier discussions about this issue, so I'd also like you to be aware of something about my own relation to this material. I agreed with Kirkegaard and the other members of his Slack that RationalWiki was a disreputable website, and that the project to discredit it was a worthwhile endeavor, but I never supported their subsequent project to add the same type of material to Wikipedia. My preference was, and still is, for Wikipedia to be an actual encyclopedic website. However, at this stage I don't deny the logic of their plan. As can be seen from the above linked discussions at Twitter, there were quite a few people who paid attention to our trolling project at RationalWiki in 2018-2019, and who understand that this claim about modern psychometrics was always intended as a parody of left-wing extremism. Now that this parody argument is unironically being repeated at Wikipedia, it makes a very strong point about how vulnerable Wikipedia is to being manipulated by right-leaning trolls if they adopt the rhetoric of antiracism.
Incidentally, SMcCandlish is another user who is aware of the parody (and probable parody) material that's been added in this topic area, so I encourage you to discuss it with him if you're interested in more details. 2600:1004:B147:4751:3970:E21B:3D74:B13A ( talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC". It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that." The RFC he's referring to is the one that occurred on the article's talk page, [3] about whether the hereditarian view is fringe or not. So in other words, it is the clear consensus of the community that the question of whether the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe or not, and the question of whether the unverifiable material must be included, can't be treated as two separate questions. As I mentioned in my last comment, the admin who shut down the discussion at NORN gave a similar explanation.
@ DGG: Sorry for the ping, but it's been nearly a month and we haven't heard anything from you. There seems to be a clear consensus here that the amendment request needs to be made. Is that something you're still intending to do? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 22:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I've come to think that the most fundamental issue underlying these various debates is a deep misunderstanding of science itself, so I'm wondering if this is where we should focus the ArbCom discussion. General overview of the argument as follows:
Editors (and commentators off-wiki) frequently appeal to scientific consensus, or "Science", but fail to consider the conditions necessary for science to reliably generate trustworthy results. Humans are inherently biased, and generally function more like self-serving politicians than scientists (no offense!). There's little reason to trust scientists more than others in general, except because of the power of the scientific method (just as we don't blindly trust journalists in general, but trust reliable sources specifically because of their process of fact-checking, vetting sources, etc.). The scientific method can and does reliably generate trustworthy results, but only when two very important conditions are met:
We shouldn't expect science to produce trustworthy results in the absence of either of these two conditions. COVID-19 lab leak theory fails #1, as it revolves around hypotheses that are largely unfalsifiable at present (same goes for debates such as the future impact of global warming). And the race and intelligence debate fails #2, as the scientific community is seemingly quite hostile to falsification of the null hypothesis. That is to say, none of these issues has reached a scientific consensus based on a genuine application of the scientific method, and so we can't reliably trust that consensus. Trusting the "Science" in these areas amounts to blind faith in the trustworthiness of scientists in general—which is basically the exact opposite of proper science.
I think this also sheds some light on the issues we've seen of editors misrepresenting the scientific consensus, because I think they're directionally right. They're right in the sense that the scientific consensus would like to say, for example, that there's no evidence of a genetic component behind racial IQ differences. And it's just one small step to say that's what the actual scientific consensus says—never mind a few troubling facts to the contrary.
But, is Wikipedia equipped to handle this problem? Is it possible to recognize the limitations of scientific research without overreaching into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? How do we avoid giving undue legitimacy to all the psuedoscience that gets rightfully dismissed due to WP:Academic bias? Analyzing the validity of a scientific consensus is obviously extremely fraught and controversial—any time the scientific consensus gets called into question, it inevitably provokes insinuations and accusations of sweeping "conspiracy theories". But nevertheless, a rational bayesian analysis really should discount scientific consensus views that are unfalsifiable, and it should take into account the stifling effects of a scientific community hostile to heterodox views. Could we develop a Reliable Science guideline in the same way we have guidelines on reliable sources? Or could we update WP:FRINGE policy to account for this somehow (maybe some guidance to actually place more weight on inconvenient findings and unpopular views that come out despite hostility)? Stonkaments ( talk) 01:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I do hope for change in these areas--I do not expect it to come quickly, because I think the participants in WP, just like people in the world generally, are not actually prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but rather look for evidence to support their own preconceptions.Truth will ultimately prevail, it always does; but it will likely require a lot of patience and understanding to get there. Starting another RfC so soon may do more harm than good. Stonkaments ( talk) 19:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk) 23:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)This is an obvious case of edit warring, and that's why I blocked you. However, you've been alerted to ArbCom's ruling on BLPs, on fringe science, and on COVID, and I would not be surprised if the next admin who looks at your recent edits imposes a sanction. And judging from other notes here, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be an even more comprehensive review of your edits. Drmies ( talk) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You've built up a substantial track record first of wasting time of other editors in talkspace pushing points of view that are clearly not going to persuade many, and second making edits that are the wrong side of the policy boundary in articlespace. I've seen this kind of behaviour many times over the years and you are probably aware that you are on a trajectory that generally ends in a permanent ban.
I have the impression that your basic motivation for being on Wikipedia is not to be a troll. If you actually want to be constructive, don't wait to turn things around, but decide to work with your fellow editors, not against them, when you find yourself holding a minority viewpoint. If you did this, the very fact of being contrarian would amplify the value of your contributions here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Stonkaments ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wasn't edit warring, and have no intention to do so. I only attempted to change the link once (since being unblocked), and it was in the context of adding significant new relevant material to the article [14], which I thought it would lead to broader acceptance and was therefore worth attempting (per WP:CYCLE). I refrained from making any more edits after being reverted, and will continue to refrain from further edits until gaining consensus on the talk page. Stonkaments ( talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leprosy in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Hansen's Disease Museum. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Stonkaments. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Barbecue Hall of Fame, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ideanomics, Inc. Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Stonkaments, I know you're already aware of 3RR. Here's a non-template heads up that you're up against it right now at Nicholas Wade. Even though I disagree with you there, I think your first reversion was a sensible one, and your point about GR's edit changing more than just the lead was a good one. If it matters, I don't think that counts as a reason to not count it in the 3RR calculus. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Thanks a lot for writing the criticism section! It is very comprehensive, and much more neutral than what I could've done. Kudos! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 21:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
Looks like someone sneakily removed any negative info on The Metals Company article. I’m going to be offline for a while. Thought I’d let you know as you did such extensive work on it. Best, Thriley ( talk) 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)