User talk:Wnjr

Hi Wnjr, could you ellaborate on your deletion of my edit to the Mike Nifong article? Generally, I agree that "speculation" should not be a part of Wiki articles. However, I disagree that content you deleted is speculation in the context of the significant 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal has had significant national exposure, and debate. Consider the contemporaneous reporting of O. J. Simpson, who was "not guilty" in the criminal case yet found liable in the civil case. Nifong is newsworthy solely because of the Duke case, and the most significant aspect of the case was his conflict of interest between his career and election pursuit vs. his duty to be honest. Currently, the article fails to cover that the prosecutors conduct is not solely a question of ethics. I agree that the North Carolina bar has only instituted ethics charges against Nifong, and thus Nifong at most will suffer a non civil and non criminal penalty related to his membership in the bar, and perhaps his disbarment. However, Nifong does have a significant civil exposure to the wrongly accused who were found innocent. Furthermore, any time a lawyer makes a statement before a court or tribunal which is knowingly false (which includes misleading), it is a crime. These points have been reported by several news organizations. There is no "speculation" involved in reporting the relevance of the preliminary allegations and findings of the NC bar and its members, as the same facts have civil and criminal penalties. I do agree with the following:

• There is no certainty at to whether those harmed by the Duke scandal will sue Mike Nifong.
• There is no certainty as to whether a North Carolina prosecutor or a Federal district attorney will prosecute Mike Nifong for criminal acts by his false and misleading statements before the Court and conspiring to withhold evidence.

However, the article makes no assertion related to those two points and is NPOV with respect to those questions. If the article fails to report the civil and criminal predicament of Nifong, the imho it is POV. I am giving you the opportunity to explain your thoughts prior to my reverting your edit.

--Knowsetfree 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your assessment of Nifong's situation, but I do not see how it justifies including your opinion of his likely fate in the article, it would seem equally justifiable to state that "Ultimately, Nifong's conduct in the lacrosse scandal may not result in civil litigation and criminal charges against him."

If your points have been made by news organisations as you say, then please revert the edit and reference them.

Wnjr 09:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|not a vandal, shared IP}} 82.198.250.15

82.198.250.10

Hi, unfortunately I am not going to be able to unblock those IPs as evidence shows they have been used to do harm to Wik.ipedia.Pro. Additionally, the first IP appears to be a school IP, so my recommendation to you would to be to edit from home instead. --Pilot|guy 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that option. It's ridiculous that Wik.ipedia.Pro blocks registered users from editing from shared IPs. --Wnjr 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see ). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thank you.

Some of your recent edits have been identified as abusing Wik.ipedia.Pro tools or policy. Abuse is not necessarily vandalism, but it is strongly discouraged. Although abuse that occurs only occasionally may be tolerated, a pattern of serial abuse constitutes a long term pattern of abuse, and may lead to your being blocked.

Your contributions list shows that you virtually always mistag your contributions as "minor."[1] "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."[2] Even a cursory glance at recent edits you have labeled minor reveals that you are flagrantly misusing this tag by making substantive edits that clearly could be and have been "the subject of a dispute" and labeling them as minor. Simon Dodd 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism and editwarring is always a minor edit. Please refrain from making hyperbolic threats you cannot back up, it's boring.

Wnjr 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that practically every edit on your contributions list is tagged "minor", either you're abusing the tag, or you've yet to make a substantive contribution, preferring to do nothing but what you consider to be "[r]everting vandalism and editwarring." You've been warned. If it happens again, admin action will ensue.Simon Dodd 12:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[WP:AGF]? There's a simple way to solve that "either", and that's to look at the edits I've made, and yes I make a lot of minor edits, there a lot of vandals and POV-pushers around, if your baseless allegation were true at all then my edits would be regularly reverted, which is easy to check. I repeat, don't threaten me, it only makes you look like a fool.

Wnjr 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you want to go to an admin with your edit history and ask them to determine whether your changes - to pick just two recent examples - to George Galloway and Ann Althouse that are marked as "minor" meet the criteria of "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera," you go right ahead. Your edit history speaks for itself. I'm not threatening you, merely warning. And after your behavior in recent days, you have to be joking to cite WP:AGF at me.[UPDATE: Yeah, you know what? Never mind leaving it to your choice to have an admin look at your record, or arguing about WP policy. Let's have an admin look at your record and determine whether you're in violation.][3] Simon Dodd 14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of heat about nothing here, folks. Simon, there was absolutely no need to come in here, guns somking, with block threats and all the rest. Wnjr is obviously a good-faith productive contributor. You could really have brought forward your request more politely. Wnjr, with all due respect, on browsing through your contributions I do think there were a few where the "m" tag was not very appropriate. Now, peace, everybody, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate here what I already said at the admin noticeboard, as to why I added {{Uw-longterm}} tag: I wasn't aware when I added the secondary tag that {{Uw-longterm}} was a "level-3 warning ... speaking of 'only warning', 'vandlism' and 'you will be blocked.'" At WP:WARN, that tag is described as having the purpose of flagging a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse," which would precisely describe User:Wnjr's record of a long term pattern of abusing the minor edit tag. That's why I added it, and if that isn't {{Uw-longterm}}'s purpose, perhaps WP:WARN should be changed to reflect that? ;) Simon Dodd 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you noticed what it said when you hit "save"? I don't think continuing to describe an error as abuse is helpful btw. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it didn't seem sufficiently off-point to merit removal. The WP:WARN description of the tag is to warn a user for a long-term pattern of abuse, and User:Wnjr has a long-term pattern of abuse - the shoe fitted, even if it wasn't precisely the style of shoe that I'd normally deem appropriate. Again, if that template is not intended to flag a long-term pattern of abuse, which is really the only reason why it would be inappropriate to have used it here, WP:WARN should be changed, because that's what it describes the tag's purpose as being. Alternatively, if the language of the template is excessively harsh for the purposes for which the tag is held out, the language of the template should be changed. There is clearly a mismatch between means and ends. Perhaps there should be a separate tags for a long-term pattern of abuse (which is what we have here) and a long-term pattern of vandalism, which I'm certainly not accusing User:Wnjr of. Simon Dodd 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the tags fault? Again please stop labelling an error as abuse. It's offensive, so please just stop it. As I asked on the AN there must be more to this than meets the eye. Do you two have a history? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, I've replied on the AN thread and we should take further discussion there so as not to bifurcate the discussion.[4]

I'm going to reply here as the thread on AN/I is getting very long and off topic. I would say that yes if you are reverting a clearly disruptive edit you can mark the edit minor but by clearly disruptive I mean out and out vandalism. Page blanking, adding "my teacher is a knob" that kind of thing. In an edit war situation (which Simon didn't tell me about despite my asking twice, but these things have a way of coming out) then no, it's not OK to mark your edit as minor. Hope this helps. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked no such thing! You asked if this user and I had a history. I have no history with him/her, and I neither have any idea or any interest in who they are. The edit war you're talking about was halted by admin action an hour before I reported this violation.Simon Dodd 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro. I don't know any welcome templates, but welcome anyway. I hope this tempest in a teacup doesn't put you off contributing. FWIW I agree with Theresa's assessment; keep making those good contributions, use the m a bit less, and stay frosty in your responses to criticism, however uncivil or misguided. Good luck! Anchoress 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganging up on me on User:Horologium's behalf is a sorry way to seek to divert attention from your own history of abuse and stalking. I have never spammed WP or anywhere else, so don't try and make me look bad on my User Talk page, in order to try and make yourself look good. 70.23.167.160 12:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You endlessly spam Wik.ipedia.Pro with links to your own writing, it is laughable of you to claim that multiple editors noticing your abuses are 'ganging up'. Don't lie about me to cover your own laughable self-promotion, I have no history of abuse and have never been accused of stalking, you post the same crap across multiple articles in bad faith and wiser editors rightly remove it.

Wnjr 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am placing a link to the article that you are so obsessed with keeping from WP readers, so that people can see what it is that you call "spam." Only the most important expose yet written on the Duke case. It's too bad that people like you refuse to permit WP to ever become an encyclopedia.

70.23.167.160 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing your link, it is of no relevance here, your spamming is no more welcome on this page than any other.

Wnjr 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it totally improper for you to be ganging up on me on Horologium's behalf, but you lied. No; he is not "perfectly able to issue warnings, as is any other editor, since warnings are not administrative action, they merely advise that if a course of conduct continues then administrative action may follow." He said that I "will" be blocked, which means that he was impersonating an administrator. And in lying on his behalf, you too engaged in fraud. The abuse just never ends with you, does it? 70.23.167.160 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I stated his actions are perfectly proper, per Wik.ipedia.Pro:Vandalism: "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page. [...] Wik.ipedia.Pro vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: [...] Spam Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism."

Wnjr 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just another wikistalinist. And regarding your charge that I have spammed WP, you're a liar, in addition to being a stalker and a vandal.

70.23.167.160 07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare spam this page. Wnjr 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey "wikistalinist"! he he. a nice phrase from the comment above! thanks for taking an interest in the LARC page, it seems the slow burning edit war has returned to blacken our days again, so i have asked Bbatsell to take a look again, since he/she was trying to help out a while ago. cheers! Mujinga 00:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be "blackening" your days, but please stop vandalising the LARC page! Also , please desist from disengenious comments on my discussion page. You know full well that I am not objecting to my contributions being edited as you will have evidenced while stalking me. I only object o my contributions being vandalised / deleted without due cause. If you have a constructive comment to make then please feel free to leave comment on my page but otherwise please stop trolling. Paki.tv 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"stop trolling" says the troll. oh dearie me! Mujinga 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): IP block exemption granted. Request handled by: Mangojuicetalk 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some more information here? You haven't edited in over a year on this account. I don't see that you've ever requested an unblock from an autoblock before, either - can you offer some evidence that your IP range is frequently blocked? Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the user has edited sporadically throughout 2008, last editing on 15 July. That said, I cannot see any previous unblock requests. What is the specific IP range affected? Woody (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I was looking at the history of the talk page. Ok, I've granted IP block exemption based on WP:AGF about the rangeblock problems, and the positive contribution history in recent months. Mangojuice^talk 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that the ipblockexempt need is valid. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not realise. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wnjr, I would appreciate it if in the future instead of you just reverting, talk it out on the discussion page, happy editing!, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to what edit? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Times Roman and Times New Roman are the same 1932 typeface. Linotype issued it under the former name, and Monotype under the latter. However, since your change isn't incorrect, either (just the justification is), I left your change as is. Thomas Phinney (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page before making any more changed to that affect. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only linked to the MPS, because I thought that was what you was trying to do even though you did not insert the link correctly. Please try to Wik.ipedia.Pro:Assume good faith when dealing with the acts of other editors. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't assuming bad faith, I just didn't think it was neccessary. Thanks for correcting the CTC link though Wnjr (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Rather than make a new section heading I decided to put it under the one already present, but if you feel it should be put otherwise please do so) - Regarding the Marine Police Force message the reference I have now inserted reads "widely regarded", I dont understand how I was demonstrating how I am "assuming ownership of pages" though, once again please assume good faith before making unfounded accusations. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tag without any concurrent edit - you assumed that I had placed it in bad faith, without checking the references provided. That's assuming ownership, as was the messages above this asking me not to edit the MPS and TSG articles without your agreement.

Wnjr (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am really confused - when have I asked you not to edit either TSG or MPS articles without my agreement? Regarding the tag, I removed it because I thought in place of that it would be better to reword the passage, because anyone can tag something, but it takes someone else to fix it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please see the talk page before making any more changed to that affect." "I would appreciate it if in the future instead of you just reverting, talk it out on the discussion page" Wnjr (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the first because such a discussion was going on, and the second I added because of 3RR and notice that it said "aprreciate" rather than any other terms that imply I am ordering you to do something. Rather than delete the references you have inserted on the Met Public Order article, I thought I would tell you that neither of them work. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the problem with the reffs. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. But my point was that you suggested that I had unilaterally altered the MPS page to your disapproval, whereas I had simply cleaned up other people's edits which had left the page with an incomprehensible mixture of 'force' and 'service' - you asked me not to correct the article because you assumed I had acted in bad faith, sinply because I had used a term you disagree with. In the case of the TSG page you had added factually incorrect material, then complained when I removed it: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Wnjr (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that at all, I alerted you to a conversation on the talkpage which regarded a discussion about the facts that you were changing. What factually incorrect information have I added to the TSG article? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I left was: "Please see the talk page before making any more changed to that affect. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)" - I dont see what is "disapproval" with it, or how it demonstrated how I thought you acted in "bad faith". Please stop these unfounded rants against me, I class it as a personal attack. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me saying I found your proprietorial attitude offensive is a personal attack? Calm down and get some perspective. Wnjr (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you have gone out of your way to try to bully me off of this site, once again please assume good faith and refrain from making personal remarks such as "reply to Police,Mad,Jack, tantrum" in your edit summary. I feel that this was a personal attack. Please stop making personal attacks towards me, this is contrary to WP:No personal attacks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to ignore postings like these from Police,Mad,Jack, he only does them to provoke a response so he can try to get you banned for incivility. See also User talk:80.177.190.147#Before taking Police, Mad, Jacks edits or comments at face value please read the notes below. He been told about ownership but can't let it go. 80.177.190.147 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor have I tried to get blocked for incivility? And what pages am I assuming ownership of? None, is the short answer to it. My message in question which I left on this users page was:

Please see the talk page before making any more changed to that affect. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) This is not assuming ownership, that is making a user aware of a talk page discussion which is against not a single rule here on Wik.ipedia.Pro. And I have never asked Wnjr to ask me for permission before the user either edits TSG, or the MPS article. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Plural of virus. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Wnjr (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add this section. Many contributors did. And there are references. And you don't own it. This treatment of common misconceptions was put in place to head off those who really believe that "viri" or "virii" are the proper plural. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You re-added the section, several times. There are no references to reliable sources in the section I removed, your desire to prevent other edits is irrelevant, stop assuming ownership of articles. Wnjr (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your removal of an entire section twice, not several times. I am tolerant of other people's edits, to the point that I don't feel the need to remove a section written by several other contributors because of some fancied fault. There are, incidentally, two perfectly valid references, one as a footnote, in the section you removed. You seem to be the one who will not tolerate interference with your agenda, and who is assuming ownership of the article, to the point that you now wish to destroy it utterly because you didn't get your way. Fine, let it be removed, then some "leet dood" will re-incarnate it as "the plural of virus is virrii ha ha ha ha ha" and we can start again. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had already reinserted the material several times before I even saw the page. I looked again at the article after you restored the material you are so keen on retaining, to see if it could be incorporated into the rest of the article, or the relevant virus and wiktionary:virus entries and determined that the useful content was already there. Creating pointless articles to protect against hypothetical, or even real, leet doods is a fool's errand.

Wnjr (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you again, I did NOT add that material to the article. It was written by someone else. I have often reverted changes to Plural of Virus, and I did edit part of another section, but the part you removed is not mine. I dispute your assertion that the article is "pointless". I see that another editor has now restored part of what you are so keen to delete. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three - BTP, CNC and MDP. The other ACPO units are better off in Category:National law enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom because they are not police forces. ninety:one 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my revert, labeling it vandalism. Yet I don't see any sources to support the POV assertions that you restored. Can you please explain your edit?   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By staying neutral and verifiable we can let the facts speak for themselves.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Territorial support group organisational chart.jpg, has been listed at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering how old this chart is. If it's not out-of-date, do you think we should add it to the TSG section in the Tomlinson article? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an example of WP:SNOW. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your . The next time you vandalize Wik.ipedia.Pro, as you did at Regulate (song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However much you might disagree with the addition of this content (and, believe me, I am on your side there) I don't understand how it can be characterised as vandalism. --Korruski^Talk 08:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple notes about this warning. First, despite the harsh "final warning," this is the first warning the editor has received, at least the first received recently. Second, the warning alleges vandalism, but the edit in question is not vandalism. The edit has been rightly reverted, but it was not vandalism. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet of the Metropolitan Police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.127.78 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious.Wnjr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Disobedience has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 25 § Disobedience until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]