User talk:Serpren

Welcome

Hello Serpren! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --Mammal Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help Where to ask a question Help Desk Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Timestamps in signatures

Hi, I just noticed you have been changing timestamps in your signatures, for example here [1]. Please don't do this - timestamps help other editors see who said what and when. Your changes on that talk page make it look as though you made those comments in the future! Timestamps use UTC for consistency., so the time shewn may be different from the time in your own timezone. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Canberra United FC were unhelpful, you did not mention the influence of Sennen or the Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.180.154 (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Thanks for your recent contributions, especially the care you're taking to request and cite sources, but please make sure when citing that you only include what the sources actually say. For instance in this edit to Devonwall, you included what looks like your own negative opinion of the event: "...did not engender great support, with only a couple of hundred people attending...", that the source does not express. This is original research and not permitted here, by policy.

If you can find another reliable source that asserts the "it was a flop" point of view, you could cite it and add something along those lines; but if you do, you ought to see if the opposing POV "it was a success" has been expressed too and if so, mention that as well, thus maintaining neutrality. Hope this is clear. Best,  —SMALLJIM  14:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mebyon Kernow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Callington (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) 15:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things

Hi. Far be it from me to appear to discourage a keen editor - esp. a Cornishman - but I'm sure you'll want to be seen to do a 'proper job'(!), so I thought I'd let you know re these 2 things. Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Camborne, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Cornish nationalism does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Trafford09 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Kernow

I'm guessing - humour me - but you may be interested in the Category for Cornish Wikipedians?

In case you didn't know, many people add such things to their userpage.

This also means of course that when signing talk pages like this, User:Trafford09 is blue (see also below, at end), whereas some newcomers (& User:Serpren at the moment) are still red.

Also - you perhaps already knew - there's Portal:Cornwall.

Your choice entirely, of course. Regards, the blue Trafford09 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rick Stein 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:

• In 2007 threats against Rick Stein's businesses were made by Cornish nationalists.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/13/cnla_threat</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Sidney Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Thomas (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) 08:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall

You know very well that the compromise wording is "Cornwall, England, UK", please stick to that! DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Per this placename consensus, please cease making bulk changes to UK placenames. The compromise wording alluded to above by DuncanHill is not simply to be enforced everywhere. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If it is a convention, it is to be used where applicable, ie. articles referring to Cornwall.01:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is very clear. Do not make systematic changes of this type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Cornwall, England, UK" convention doesn't appear to stand up very well anyway, as you have been reverted everywhere you've been lately by an admin. Where is this convention? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be contacting the admin to enquire why it has been changed, and why I have not been notified of these changes. The convention is in the message from Duncan Hill above.

He's not obliged to notify you, why would he? And no, you need a lot more than the word of another editor if you expect this "convention" to trump a properly achieved consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you have no intention of following this consensus, there is an ANI report concerning you here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been blocked for sticking what I believe is the long standing agreed convention on pages relating to Cornwall, that is the geographic location reading "Cornwall, England, UK." If this convention has changed, or has been updated, please would someone be so kind as to inform me what the new naming convention is for Cornish place names? I would hate to make the same error again. Please could someone clarify? In my defense, I never stated that I would make edits against advice, but no resolution or clarification of "Cornwall, England, UK," conundrum has been forthcoming. I think it worth noting that User "Bretonbanquet" is pushing the same "Cornish Nationalist" agenda here which led to so many disputes, and the adoption of the "Cornwall , England, UK," convention in the first place, and he has probably roped in more "Nationalists" to aid his cause.

If nothing else comes of this sorry episode, please could we have some clarification on the correct terminology for Cornish place names?

My sincere apologies for any problems my genuinely held belief that the adoption of "Cornwall, England, UK," is the agreed convention, may have caused. Your sincerely Serpren (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you had actually looked at my edits you'd see the idea of a "nationalist agenda" is very wide of the mark. The idea that I've "roped in more nationalists" is laughable. Who, exactly? Go and read WP:AGF. The situation regarding the correct terminology has been explained to you at ANI, but the point is that it is not to be enforced via mass changes. That was very clear from the consensus I have linked to you a number of times. It's probably about time you understood that it applies to you, as well as me and everyone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So why have you not accepted WP:AGF with regard to my edits, they follow a consensus and are done without malice. I do not understand this reluctance for "mass changes". If a consensus is reached with regard to a designation, why should efforts not be made to ensure conformity? Cornwall is in England, therefore the Wiki entries with regard to Cornwall should reflect that. I see no problem with them being done in batches, and almost all now do have the correct designation.Serpren (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

AGF doesn't come into it regarding your edits. It's not your rationale that is disruptive, but the principle. The reluctance for mass changes derives from the fact that, generally, no single format is better than any other, and none is wrong. The consensus on Cornish articles specifically states that changes are not made unless making other substantive edits. You do not do that. The other consensus very clearly states no mass changes. It is not relevant if you understand why or not. Everyone has to stick to it. That you consider your preferred format "correct" shows that you don't understand. It's just a local consensus, so unenforceable anyway. It's not a guideline. You still refuse to explain why you don't add UK to Cornish placenames that don't already have it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others who have the desire to add "UK", it's not, in my eyes, needed. Still there's no need for me to edit further, as most Cornish articles now have the desired denomination. Job done. Serpren (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

So you slavishly follow the consensus where it suits you, and not where it doesn't. That says everything about your editing, and explains why the admins did not hesitate to block you. Still, if you are not going to continue editing, there will be no further problems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 28 April 2015 (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).

Serpren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Serpren (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I stopped reading your request when you called fellow editors' changes vandalism. Max Semenik (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2015 (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.

I have made changes along with the long standing convention on places names in cornwall. I have made three changes over a period of some weeks. My being reported is a blatant piece of political grandstanding by a Cornish nationalist. Talk please can you let me know what the agreed convention on Cornish place names is, and why the vandalism of my edits by Bretonbanquet is allowed to continue? As Bretonbanquet says above "you slavishly follow the consensus where it suits you". So if I am following convention, then the changes I have made should not be vandalised

User:Serpren, please fill in the unblock request properly. If your defence is just that you were right about the content issue, admins are unlikely to be persuaded. You should agree to wait patiently for consensus before making controversial edits. Attacking other editors in your request ('blatant grandstanding') isn't going to win over hearts and minds. See WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Ed, I posted in anger at the way I have yet again been reported, I will compose an unblock request as per protocol as soon as possible. Best wishes,Serpren (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. I believe my blocking was incorrect, I was reported for changing Cornish articles to read "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom". My edits were merely to uphold the long agreed convention on Cornish place names, that is that the term “Cornwall, England, UK,” should be used when describing places and events, or attributes of Cornwall.

This is now the case in 90% of articles on Cornwall and the Cornish, I was adding conformity where it was not in place.

At one point, where I had missed the “UK/United Kingdom” off the edit, I was informed thus; You know very well that the compromise wording is "Cornwall, England, UK", please stick to that! DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) This is the first comment above, under the "Cornwall" heading

I have adhered to that convention ever since.

Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block).

I was informed that making “bulk changes” to Wiki articles, was against convention, and had ceased doing so. I had edited three articles where the correct term “Cornwall, England, UK,” was not in place over a period of three weeks.

I have asked twice now for the admims who have instituted the block to clarify for me what the correct geographical descriptor for articles on or about Cornwall are, I do not believe the “Cornwall, England, UK,” convention has been changed, but will happily abide by any new convention if informed of it.

Give evidence. I have no evidence, except the information given to me by Duncan Hill above, and that added below, but it seems very clear cut that my edits were within the spirit of the Wiki convention on Cornish geographical delineations. I believe that I have acted in good faith when informed of that my bulk changes were against convention, and do not believe I have done anything wrong in my recent edits. I offer this in my defense;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_16#England.2C_UK_or_just_England.3F

As an FYI, there's a long-standing special-case consensus to use "England, UK" for places in Cornwall. See Wikipedia:CornwallGuideline and the bit of recent discussion on its talk page. —SMALLJIM 22:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC

Consensus regarding the debate over describing Cornwall's status as a county or a country on Wikipedia was reached in 2006. The general agreement was: • Cornwall may not be culturally part of England, however, administratively it is. Articles related to Cornwall should reflect the situation at this present time; they should only be adjusted if/when the situation changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cornwall/Guideline

I’ll apologise once more for my intemperate remarks above, but I was very angry at what I saw as a politically motivated attack on my veracity.Serpren (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I will not reverse the decision without discussion, but have contacted the blocking admin. It appears that there may be an anomaly in the policies here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by slightly involved editor. Serpren is right that "Cornwall, England, UK" has been adopted for articles about places in Cornwall, as a compromise designed to stop the edit warring we used to get between those who would not have any mention of England, and those who would not allow any mention at all of the Cornish constitutional question and nationalist aspirations except in ghettoized stand-alone articles. It has worked pretty well on the whole. I have to say I'm amazed to see Serpren blocked for actually using the correct form - in the past he hasn't been very good at it so it's good that he now is, I'm not surprised however to see who appears to have stirred things up, or that he was blocked without the admin bothering to check the facts. I'm not a fan of Serpren at all, but this block seems on the face of it to be bad. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This placename consensus is very clear, and Serpren has persistently ignored it despite several warnings. It was intended (and it works) to stop exactly this drive-by changing of placenames. While Serpren follows the Cornish consensus, it does make clear that changes to the format are generally only made while making other substantive edits to the article in question (Serpren has never done that), and he is not permitted to make bulk changes to placenames (he rarely does anything else). Furthermore, he has only applied this consensus to placenames which do not contain 'England'. He has never added 'UK' to those which do not contain it. He then claims a political attack on him, which I find most ironic. Anyone who selectively applies any consensus to suit his own preference, particularly while breaking another (newer) consensus, is simply editing disruptively. I haven't missed that he's also accused me of vandalism, which I would like to see retracted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Serpren, if you were unblocked, what substantive, useful, constructive edits would you be making to Wikipedia in areas outside of naming places in Cornwall? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

DuncanHill Duncan, that is kind, courteous and considerate of you, my thanks, I'm humbled.

Orangemike Outside of giving places in Cornwall the correct and agreed naming convention, I would add information as and when I acquire it. I cannot predict what will come to my attention, (I don't have a crystal ball, :-) ) for example, I did recently add to the "Cornish People" page some relevant genetic information, and some information and citations to the "Song of the Western men" page. I would also ask that you look at Duncan's post above.

Bretonbanquet I withdraw, and fully apologise for my use of the term "vandalism". As I have already stated above, I posted in anger at being blocked again, when I had tried scrupulously to follow convention.

EdJohnston Thanks for that. I do hope any anomaly can be eradicated. Serpren (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpren, I accept your apology. But are you saying you will continue to ignore the consensus on bulk changes of UK placenames? Apart from the two edits you made to the articles you mention, everything else you've done is bulk changes to UK placenames. I'm not really seeing that you understand the placename consensus, nor the spirit of the consensus on Cornish placenames. It's there to avoid arguments – it simply doesn't say that the "Cornwall, England, UK" format should be enforced everywhere, and particularly not selectively as you've been doing. Moreover, the placename consensus specifically says no placename format should be enforced at all. Do you have any comment about that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that if that Cornish consensus was designed to enforce that format across Cornish articles, then the editors who drew up that consensus would have enforced it already. It is not intended to be enforced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orangemike:- would you object to an unblock on a time served basis? PhilKnight (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

IF he agrees to "drop the stick" and quit "giving places in Cornwall the correct and agreed naming convention" in violation of what we've been trying to tell him was the agreement (note that it is the consensus; that doesn't make it "correct"), then yes I certainly would. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Serpren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Serpren (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Glad we could leave all this story behind. Max Semenik (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Orangemike I'm happy to agree to NEVER changing another article to read "Cornwall, England, UK." Most Cornish articles now have this, and the ones which do not are minor. I must admit I'm still confused as to what the point of agreeing consensus is, if it does not need to be applied. But that's by the by. When my block is lifted I shall continue to add to Cornish articles when I have anything of interest or value to add.

Cheers, Craig 02:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dead reference links

Please see WP:DEADREF - it is inappropriate to simply remove a reference to a dead link without at least attempting to find an archived page or an alternative source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AndyTheGrump , I have been attempting to, should I just mark and leave any dead links?Serpren (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Cornwall 2000) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 12:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Cornish heraldry because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". You appear to be marking all your edits as minor, even when they clearly are not. This can be misleading to other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Serpren. 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)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Serpren. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Serpren. 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)